Ok, I just registered here specifically to throw my $.02 in here about the new DRM. And even though they actually listened to their customers and gave in part way, it's still not enough. Why? Because we are still being asked to go out of our way to prove to them that we are not criminals.
Don't get me wrong, in this day and age, for some things this is fine. But oddly enough, this is happening less and less often in important security matters and more and more in trivial stuff. Example: I've been burned with identity theft before. I refuse to do direct deposit, because I have learned that every time the banks make it easier for me to manage my money, they also make it easier for someone else to manage my money. So I do paper checks, because it means should something bad happen I lose one paycheck, not the next 10+ paychecks as a result of cumulative overdraft fees due to fraud. Yes, this happens, and it was family (extended) that did this to me. Yet, despite the frequency of identity theft, (and finally I reach my point ) Walmart doesn't see the need to check my ID every time I cash my check.
So why is it I have to prove myself to EA to simply play a game?
Taking the analogy further, many people cannot understand why I am so paranoid about electronic banking. They don't understand that I've discovered multiple times that the more I learn, the less I know. So, when I hear people say that they refuse to let their gaming pc online, I respect that. It may sound paranoid to you, but what silly thing are you afraid of that your friends don't understand?
Finally, I am one of those people who consider home internet access a luxury. Yes, I've gotten quite used to it, and would like to keep having it for some time, but the truth is it's not a necessary for me, and I've spent more time w/o internet that with, and expect that to remain the case. So the idea of a game that requires internet activation even once puts it on my "do not buy" list, because 5 years down the road if I want to play it again I might not be able to.
Now, I'm all for protecting one's intellectual property. I do not believe people have a right to stuff they did not pay for (unless it's specifically labeled FOSS). But while the view "pirates aren't customers, and never will be" is shortsighted, it does illustrate a point, and that point is that they are chasing money that simply doesn't exist. So why are they inconveniencing paying customers in the process?
Since it appears I am in the vast minority, I will ask a question: what other options are there? How is a publisher to protect its investments? Assuming that 'making money' is the sum of their intent, what are they to do?
Money invested in quality game content will generate more revenue than money spent on restrictive DRM software, authentication servers, and other such.
The part about extra software running in my background and having to call EA tech support should I change my hardware, or not play for 10 days was enough to lose my buisness.
1: They no longer have the 10 day reauthentication.
2: If you didn't play for 10 days all you had to do was start it up while having an internet connection, you didn't need to call them.
3: Many hardware changes would not affect the Mass Effect authentication, you wouldn't need to call them.
so even if they hadn't changed it, you misunderstood how it worked.
I'd like to know how you know "many" hardware changes wouldn't affect it, as Bioware themselves has stated that they have no idea what would or wouldn't.
Because they also said that they "shouldn't" affect it.
We know for certain that graphics card changes wouldn't. We also know that the easiest way to ensure it's on the same computer, and less intrusive, would be involving the MAC address, where changes other than the network hardware or Motherboard wouldn't affect it.
We don't know for sure that graphics card changes don't. We know one Bioware employee changed one specific type of video card, and it didn't He himself said that it might use one up with different video cards. We know that would be the easiest way, but we have no idea how it actually works, and you're making shit up to make it sound less bad.
Making shit up? No, I'm extrapolating based on information given.
I'm curious as to what the possible scripting could be that would only recognize a system as the same if only certain GPUs were exchanged. That would not even make sense and be harder to script than just having it not pay attention to the GPU at all.
So... making shit up? If Bioware says that some video card swaps may trigger an authorization and some might not, I tend to believe them. If they say that they have no details about how the system determines whether or not to use an authorization, I believe them. If you try and say that it does or doesn't use certain system components, scripts, or anything else, why should we believe you?
Because they also said that they "shouldn't" affect it.
We know for certain that graphics card changes wouldn't. We also know that the easiest way to ensure it's on the same computer, and less intrusive, would be involving the MAC address, where changes other than the network hardware or Motherboard wouldn't affect it.
No, we know for certain that some graphics card changes won't affect it. Of course, others could; others could render the game totally inoperable.
Yeah, sure, and if you hit your computer with a sledgehammer it won't work either, but is that Biowares fault?
I don't even see the point in making room for the possibility that beyond the graphics cards capabilities of running the game, a change in a specific part with the same interface and general architecture would with certain specific hardwares register as a change in computers where another specific hardware would not.
Making shit up? No, I'm extrapolating based on information given.
I'm curious as to what the possible scripting could be that would only recognize a system as the same if only certain GPUs were exchanged. That would not even make sense and be harder to script than just having it not pay attention to the GPU at all.
What makes you think it needs to pay attention to the GPU to make it think it's switched systems?
Since it appears I am in the vast minority, I will ask a question: what other options are there? How is a publisher to protect its investments? Assuming that 'making money' is the sum of their intent, what are they to do?
Money invested in quality game content will generate more revenue than money spent on restrictive DRM software, authentication servers, and other such.
The part about extra software running in my background and having to call EA tech support should I change my hardware, or not play for 10 days was enough to lose my buisness.
1: They no longer have the 10 day reauthentication.
2: If you didn't play for 10 days all you had to do was start it up while having an internet connection, you didn't need to call them.
3: Many hardware changes would not affect the Mass Effect authentication, you wouldn't need to call them.
so even if they hadn't changed it, you misunderstood how it worked.
I'd like to know how you know "many" hardware changes wouldn't affect it, as Bioware themselves has stated that they have no idea what would or wouldn't.
Because they also said that they "shouldn't" affect it.
We know for certain that graphics card changes wouldn't. We also know that the easiest way to ensure it's on the same computer, and less intrusive, would be involving the MAC address, where changes other than the network hardware or Motherboard wouldn't affect it.
...
Just FYI, MAC addresses aren't even slightly static, we just pretend they are so network engineers don't freak out. CPU ID would be the better way of figuring that out, since your processor is likely to not change often.
More than likely it will be 5-6 items taken together in a list, and if 3 of them change, it's a new machine. If 1 or 2 do, it's a hardware upgrade/replacement.
Making shit up? No, I'm extrapolating based on information given.
I'm curious as to what the possible scripting could be that would only recognize a system as the same if only certain GPUs were exchanged. That would not even make sense and be harder to script than just having it not pay attention to the GPU at all.
What makes you think it needs to pay attention to the GPU to make it think it's switched systems?
I think it doesn't, which is why thinking that a switch of a specific GPU to another specific GPU not interfering meaning that GPU switches in general won't isn't a giant improbable leap of faith.
I think the most likely scenario is that it checks against the MAC address, which is unique to all systems and will only change in the event of a network hardware change or Motherboard change.
This would be the most efficient for them, and it would allow the most hardware changes, including HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, Monitor, Optical drives, anything not one of those two.
EDIT: Or what Kildie said.
If multiple parts were taken, then it could update the computer specs and as long as a computer is upgraded incrementally, as is normal, then it will continue working.
This would be the most efficient for them, and it would allow the most hardware changes, including HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, Monitor, Optical drives, anything not one of those two.
And what, precisely, has given you the impression that SecuROM is likely to take the "most efficient" route to do anything?
This would be the most efficient for them, and it would allow the most hardware changes, including HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, Monitor, Optical drives, anything not one of those two.
And what, precisely, has given you the impression that SecuROM is likely to take the "most efficient" route to do anything?
HOPE
To contribute: You don't want to peg any single item, and the NIC is a terrible choice in particular (we almost all run virtual NICs now due to VPNs and whatnot, plus MACs can be altered on the fly with no downsides).
A listing of multiple items taken as the machine itself and look for multiple changes in a short timespan is how most hardware checks do it. It lets you replace failed Anything (including CPU) and upgrade whatever, but if you drop the mainboard, CPU, and video card at the same time in a massive upgrade spree, it'll probably call you on it.
This would be the most efficient for them, and it would allow the most hardware changes, including HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, Monitor, Optical drives, anything not one of those two.
And what, precisely, has given you the impression that SecuROM is likely to take the "most efficient" route to do anything?
Because SecuROM, as much as people like to think, is not about fucking over the customers, it's about doing it's job in the way the programmers feel is best.
Online activation? It certainly seems as though it would help against Keygens, since they can constantly update the registry.
Constant online activation? Again, allows for a mutable database.
They'll most likely not take a route that makes their call center light up like the 4th of July for no reason other than to be douchebags.
I think that the entirety of this thread has shown plenty of ways in which SecuROM is, in fact, about fucking over customers and accomplishing very little that the programmers design it to do.
If a hardware ID check becomes commonplace, it would be relatively trivial (2-3 months, easy) for people to simply make a virtual hardware framework for piracy. Fake CPUIDs, Graphics Card Responses, etc. Don't intercept actual system calls, just fake it for the authentication portion.
It's not worth it for an isolated release, but if it's the long term EA goal, it would be time efficient on a piracy side.
Anywho, this is me rambling. Piracy vs DRM is a permanent running war minus Trusted Computing, which nobody will ever let happen on a large scale. I can fake anything you can test on what's essentially a virtual platform to begin with. So the test needs to change constantly.
Because SecuROM, as much as people like to think, is not about fucking over the customers, it's about doing it's job in the way the programmers feel is best.
Even if it is theoretically beneficial in the long run, its definately generating alot of negative PR for EA right now
I think that the entirety of this thread has shown plenty of ways in which SecuROM is, in fact, about fucking over customers and accomplishing very little that the programmers design it to do.
Because it's poorly implemented and the idea is bad?
Or because there are work-arounds that are designable by hackers?
Again, think about the idea of online activation. Without a crack or problems in connecting, it's great, and the idea is probably that most people who have a computer and are interested in gaming have an internet connection. They didn't think about those who didn't, which is why they revoked that.
They aren't just doing it to be dicks, they're doing it because they think it's the best way.
Unless they're run by a bunch of morons there's no reason to program it in an overly convoluted way which will be less effective.
And yes, I know "Internet connection required = morons", not thinking something fully through is a little different than doing something in a way that will cost them more to do than in a smarter way.
I think that the entirety of this thread has shown plenty of ways in which SecuROM is, in fact, about fucking over customers and accomplishing very little that the programmers design it to do.
Because it's poorly implemented and the idea is bad?
Or because there are work-arounds that are designable by hackers?
Again, think about the idea of online activation. Without a crack or problems in connecting, it's great.
They aren't just doing it to be dicks, they're doing it because they think it's the best way.
Unless they're run by a bunch of morons there's no reason to program it in an overly convoluted way which will be less effective.
Online Activation just means you need a copy of the activated binary to run on pirated copies. It's nice and stops keygens, but opens a new attack vector.
Constant activation checks stop that (by letting you ban the activation key for the known pirated copies), or in most games that do this, it's called Logging In (see CoH:OF, where you log in even for the single player in the expansion)
The moron problem is mostly that the starforce/secuROM/etc groups have all shown a desire for profit margin over security. They're willing to do stupid shit like place a wrapper on your CD drive that drastically fucks performance in order to take the shortest path to a product.
Done right, I have no issue with DRM in general (number of uses/number of devices rubs me the wrong way, but the general idea of making sure my person owns your product I'm fine with), but it's a constant arms race.
The reality of the problem is that you have no way as a security developer to look at my hardware. You ask my OS to look at my hardware, and as the user I can tell the OS to completely bullshit you. The way around this is to put your security layer down farther in the OS and skip that easily intercepted system call. However at this point you're playing deep in the OS of the valid non pirating users and possibly deeply fucking them when you get into multiple security companies putting multiple deep driver wrappers around shit. You get into situations where Starforce has your DVD drive wrapped to get real calls from it's DVD check, but SecuROM wraps it, too. And now you're fucked 8 ways to sunday.
I'm rambling on, but these are the core technical issues with this pathway. Too many vendors, too many ways to bypass the security for actual pirates, and the random valid paid user gets royally boned in the crossfire.
Damn, and I was looking forward to Spore. Now I won't be buying it unless they get rid of this crap.
I could go on a long tirade about using different systems and being away from the internet for a while, but basically:
When I read, in an FAQ, that yes, if I'm away from the internet for 10 days my play will be disabled, I say... wtf, why should I be disabled from playing a game I legally purchased? Say I don't play Spore for a month, then I'm on a road trip with my laptop and want to whip it out... Spore says, "Sorry, you haven't played me recently, so now you don't get to! Buahaha!"
This is turning a non-online game into requiring semi-permanent internet access. Bad move imo.
I fail to see how their motivations in choosing a shitty system come into play at all.
Because assuming they're going to take a more expensive and less effective means that serves no purpose seems to be brought forwards as a theory when the only possible reason for such a route could be them either being stupid or dickbags.
Since we assume they are neither, we assume that they're going to do what works best and is cheapest for them.
As Kildy said, there are possible side-effects which can be negative, but the core idea of what they're doing is trying to do it best, not just doing it in a dumb way.
Damn, and I was looking forward to Spore. Now I won't be buying it unless they get rid of this crap.
I could go on a long tirade about using different systems and being away from the internet for a while, but basically:
When I read, in an FAQ, that yes, if I'm away from the internet for 10 days my play will be disabled, I say... wtf, why should I be disabled from playing a game I legally purchased? Say I don't play Spore for a month, then I'm on a road trip with my laptop and want to whip it out... Spore says, "Sorry, you haven't played me recently, so now you don't get to! Buahaha!"
This is turning a non-online game into requiring semi-permanent internet access. Bad move imo.
Exactly.
Even though I am apparently misunderstanding how this new system works (as Mr OMG so pompously put it), its generating a cloud of negative feedback from the consumer base.
The way I see it, my time is valuable, and so is my money. New EA titles are not worth the risk to see if this new SecuroDRM thingy is really a hassle or not.
Im sure there are plenty others out there who feel this way.
It's a decision that has absolutely no reason to be made as such.
I'm only not making sense because I'm not assuming all companies are evil and stupid and I'm not being needlessly obtuse. There's no reason to assume that any hardware change other than one GPU change that the Bioware dude made is going to fuck up the activation. It's a really, really, really, really safe assumption to say that all GPU changes will be fine. It's also safe to say that there is a very high probability that a large number of single hardware changes will not be a problem.
Yes, we don't have confirmation that anything other than that one specific GPU change will not mess up an activation. That doesn't mean that it's completely out of left field to assume that there are other changes that will not mess up an activation.
You're not making sense because you're not discussing any one thing in particular. You seem to have a vague position of defending this DRM scheme from all sorts of weird angles that include "Companies aren't evil, so it must make sense" and "It obviously will work like this because they said they have no idea how it works". You're making assumptions that directly counteract what Bioware themselves has said about how the DRM determines how hardware changes will affect activation. You're making shit up.
If you have any good points about how this DRM scheme will make piracy more difficult without hurting the end users, please, I'd love to hear them.
EDIT: And ffs, find somewhere, anywhere in this thread or any other, where I've talked about the companies involved being "evil". You're being ridiculous.
It's a DRM scheme that requires an internet connection but gives tangible benefits to paying customers.
Such as?
This pretty much rules out those games being purchased for me. I travel, and play games on the plane/train. The idea that the games are going to stop running if I don't find a hotspot every 10 days makes them fairly unuseable for me.
Such as all of the ones I listed right before the quote you snipped?
My fault.
For some reason I thought you were saying it was the EA scheme had a bunch of tangible benefits, rather than Steam.
BubbaT on
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Edit: Changing it, actually... making it more like the Steam model, where you authenticate once, and then only have to do so again when you add new game content (I assume this means patching, as well).
You're not making sense because you're not discussing any one thing in particular. You seem to have a vague position of defending this DRM scheme from all sorts of weird angles that include "Companies aren't evil, so it must make sense" and "It obviously will work like this because they said they have no idea how it works". You're making assumptions that directly counteract what Bioware themselves has said about how the DRM determines how hardware changes will affect activation. You're making shit up.
If you have any good points about how this DRM scheme will make piracy more difficult without hurting the end users, please, I'd love to hear them.
Defending the DRM scheme? You said this last thread and it wasn't true then either. Funny how you take trying to counteract assumptions about how overly restrictive it obviously must be(which are made with the same facts as I have for my "defending") as defending.
I responded to someone saying that if they had any hardware changes, they'd have to call EA CS.
I said that there are "many" hardware changes that will not affect the activation.
You said that I can't know that.
I said that it's a safe assumption based on what the bioware rep said and an idea of different ways the hardware checks were being done.
You said that I have no way of knowing that because they only had one piece of equipment that was replaced with one piece of equipment and beyond that it's unknowable.
I then explained that the company will probably act logically with no random stupidity or malice that makes them do anything else.
Also, what happens when you have the game on your main desktop as well as your laptop? I could see playing a game such as Spore like that, and I'm only one person so I don't see why I should buy two copies if only one is ever going to be in use at a time.
Wouldn't it have to re-register every time you switch machines?
I'm reading that it can be authenticated on up to 3 different machines... a little low for me, but probably enough for most people?
That could be, depending on how it's implemented. If all it does is scan for hardware changes every 10 days and decrement the number of registrations left, if I auth once on my PC, a second time on my laptop, and a third back on my PC, my laptop is now locked out.
Which, interestingly enough, has now been posted three times, and isn't entirely true!
I searched for 'Tycho' and I'm only seeing my post.
So uh... swing and a miss?
I'm sorry, does Tycho posting it make it any different than the other articles that were already posted? Or was it just to add in that Tycho posted it as well?
Which, interestingly enough, has now been posted three times, and isn't entirely true!
I searched for 'Tycho' and I'm only seeing my post.
So uh... swing and a miss?
I'm sorry, does Tycho posting it make it any different than the other articles that were already posted? Or was it just to add in that Tycho posted it as well?
Any reason you're being a complete dick? Pardon the fuck out of me for pointing out the guy that brought this to much of the internet's attention is saying they've backed off.
Which, interestingly enough, has now been posted three times, and isn't entirely true!
I searched for 'Tycho' and I'm only seeing my post.
So uh... swing and a miss?
I'm sorry, does Tycho posting it make it any different than the other articles that were already posted? Or was it just to add in that Tycho posted it as well?
Any reason you're being a complete dick? Pardon the fuck out of me for pointing out the guy that brought this to much of the internet's attention is saying they've backed off.
Thing is, those things have already been pointed out. Not only that, they're not exactly true. They're removing the 10-day check, but keeping the auth limit. I wasn't trying to be a dick with my first response, so I'm sorry if you thought I was, but the "swing and a miss" comment rubbed me the wrong way. The exact same articles Tycho posted point out how it's not really the old style, either.
Also, what happens when you have the game on your main desktop as well as your laptop? I could see playing a game such as Spore like that, and I'm only one person so I don't see why I should buy two copies if only one is ever going to be in use at a time.
Wouldn't it have to re-register every time you switch machines?
Then you'll have one activation free, and you can buy a new computer, put it on that, and still play it!
Posts
Don't get me wrong, in this day and age, for some things this is fine. But oddly enough, this is happening less and less often in important security matters and more and more in trivial stuff. Example: I've been burned with identity theft before. I refuse to do direct deposit, because I have learned that every time the banks make it easier for me to manage my money, they also make it easier for someone else to manage my money. So I do paper checks, because it means should something bad happen I lose one paycheck, not the next 10+ paychecks as a result of cumulative overdraft fees due to fraud. Yes, this happens, and it was family (extended) that did this to me. Yet, despite the frequency of identity theft, (and finally I reach my point
So why is it I have to prove myself to EA to simply play a game?
Taking the analogy further, many people cannot understand why I am so paranoid about electronic banking. They don't understand that I've discovered multiple times that the more I learn, the less I know. So, when I hear people say that they refuse to let their gaming pc online, I respect that. It may sound paranoid to you, but what silly thing are you afraid of that your friends don't understand?
Finally, I am one of those people who consider home internet access a luxury. Yes, I've gotten quite used to it, and would like to keep having it for some time, but the truth is it's not a necessary for me, and I've spent more time w/o internet that with, and expect that to remain the case. So the idea of a game that requires internet activation even once puts it on my "do not buy" list, because 5 years down the road if I want to play it again I might not be able to.
Now, I'm all for protecting one's intellectual property. I do not believe people have a right to stuff they did not pay for (unless it's specifically labeled FOSS). But while the view "pirates aren't customers, and never will be" is shortsighted, it does illustrate a point, and that point is that they are chasing money that simply doesn't exist. So why are they inconveniencing paying customers in the process?
Making shit up? No, I'm extrapolating based on information given.
I'm curious as to what the possible scripting could be that would only recognize a system as the same if only certain GPUs were exchanged. That would not even make sense and be harder to script than just having it not pay attention to the GPU at all.
Yeah, sure, and if you hit your computer with a sledgehammer it won't work either, but is that Biowares fault?
I don't even see the point in making room for the possibility that beyond the graphics cards capabilities of running the game, a change in a specific part with the same interface and general architecture would with certain specific hardwares register as a change in computers where another specific hardware would not.
...
Just FYI, MAC addresses aren't even slightly static, we just pretend they are so network engineers don't freak out. CPU ID would be the better way of figuring that out, since your processor is likely to not change often.
More than likely it will be 5-6 items taken together in a list, and if 3 of them change, it's a new machine. If 1 or 2 do, it's a hardware upgrade/replacement.
I think it doesn't, which is why thinking that a switch of a specific GPU to another specific GPU not interfering meaning that GPU switches in general won't isn't a giant improbable leap of faith.
I think the most likely scenario is that it checks against the MAC address, which is unique to all systems and will only change in the event of a network hardware change or Motherboard change.
This would be the most efficient for them, and it would allow the most hardware changes, including HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, Monitor, Optical drives, anything not one of those two.
EDIT: Or what Kildie said.
If multiple parts were taken, then it could update the computer specs and as long as a computer is upgraded incrementally, as is normal, then it will continue working.
Steam allows you to re-download and re-install as many times as you want.
Steam is tied to your account not to your machine.
Problems with both:
They can both be shut off any time
They both cause resale issues
They both require one-time-per-install internet access
HOPE
To contribute: You don't want to peg any single item, and the NIC is a terrible choice in particular (we almost all run virtual NICs now due to VPNs and whatnot, plus MACs can be altered on the fly with no downsides).
A listing of multiple items taken as the machine itself and look for multiple changes in a short timespan is how most hardware checks do it. It lets you replace failed Anything (including CPU) and upgrade whatever, but if you drop the mainboard, CPU, and video card at the same time in a massive upgrade spree, it'll probably call you on it.
Because SecuROM, as much as people like to think, is not about fucking over the customers, it's about doing it's job in the way the programmers feel is best.
Online activation? It certainly seems as though it would help against Keygens, since they can constantly update the registry.
Constant online activation? Again, allows for a mutable database.
They'll most likely not take a route that makes their call center light up like the 4th of July for no reason other than to be douchebags.
It's not worth it for an isolated release, but if it's the long term EA goal, it would be time efficient on a piracy side.
Anywho, this is me rambling. Piracy vs DRM is a permanent running war minus Trusted Computing, which nobody will ever let happen on a large scale. I can fake anything you can test on what's essentially a virtual platform to begin with. So the test needs to change constantly.
Even if it is theoretically beneficial in the long run, its definately generating alot of negative PR for EA right now
Because it's poorly implemented and the idea is bad?
Or because there are work-arounds that are designable by hackers?
Again, think about the idea of online activation. Without a crack or problems in connecting, it's great, and the idea is probably that most people who have a computer and are interested in gaming have an internet connection. They didn't think about those who didn't, which is why they revoked that.
They aren't just doing it to be dicks, they're doing it because they think it's the best way.
Unless they're run by a bunch of morons there's no reason to program it in an overly convoluted way which will be less effective.
And yes, I know "Internet connection required = morons", not thinking something fully through is a little different than doing something in a way that will cost them more to do than in a smarter way.
Online Activation just means you need a copy of the activated binary to run on pirated copies. It's nice and stops keygens, but opens a new attack vector.
Constant activation checks stop that (by letting you ban the activation key for the known pirated copies), or in most games that do this, it's called Logging In (see CoH:OF, where you log in even for the single player in the expansion)
The moron problem is mostly that the starforce/secuROM/etc groups have all shown a desire for profit margin over security. They're willing to do stupid shit like place a wrapper on your CD drive that drastically fucks performance in order to take the shortest path to a product.
Done right, I have no issue with DRM in general (number of uses/number of devices rubs me the wrong way, but the general idea of making sure my person owns your product I'm fine with), but it's a constant arms race.
The reality of the problem is that you have no way as a security developer to look at my hardware. You ask my OS to look at my hardware, and as the user I can tell the OS to completely bullshit you. The way around this is to put your security layer down farther in the OS and skip that easily intercepted system call. However at this point you're playing deep in the OS of the valid non pirating users and possibly deeply fucking them when you get into multiple security companies putting multiple deep driver wrappers around shit. You get into situations where Starforce has your DVD drive wrapped to get real calls from it's DVD check, but SecuROM wraps it, too. And now you're fucked 8 ways to sunday.
I'm rambling on, but these are the core technical issues with this pathway. Too many vendors, too many ways to bypass the security for actual pirates, and the random valid paid user gets royally boned in the crossfire.
I could go on a long tirade about using different systems and being away from the internet for a while, but basically:
When I read, in an FAQ, that yes, if I'm away from the internet for 10 days my play will be disabled, I say... wtf, why should I be disabled from playing a game I legally purchased? Say I don't play Spore for a month, then I'm on a road trip with my laptop and want to whip it out... Spore says, "Sorry, you haven't played me recently, so now you don't get to! Buahaha!"
This is turning a non-online game into requiring semi-permanent internet access. Bad move imo.
Because assuming they're going to take a more expensive and less effective means that serves no purpose seems to be brought forwards as a theory when the only possible reason for such a route could be them either being stupid or dickbags.
Since we assume they are neither, we assume that they're going to do what works best and is cheapest for them.
As Kildy said, there are possible side-effects which can be negative, but the core idea of what they're doing is trying to do it best, not just doing it in a dumb way.
Exactly.
Even though I am apparently misunderstanding how this new system works (as Mr OMG so pompously put it), its generating a cloud of negative feedback from the consumer base.
The way I see it, my time is valuable, and so is my money. New EA titles are not worth the risk to see if this new SecuroDRM thingy is really a hassle or not.
Im sure there are plenty others out there who feel this way.
You stopped making sense to me so long ago.
It's a decision that has absolutely no reason to be made as such.
I'm only not making sense because I'm not assuming all companies are evil and stupid and I'm not being needlessly obtuse. There's no reason to assume that any hardware change other than one GPU change that the Bioware dude made is going to fuck up the activation. It's a really, really, really, really safe assumption to say that all GPU changes will be fine. It's also safe to say that there is a very high probability that a large number of single hardware changes will not be a problem.
Yes, we don't have confirmation that anything other than that one specific GPU change will not mess up an activation. That doesn't mean that it's completely out of left field to assume that there are other changes that will not mess up an activation.
If you have any good points about how this DRM scheme will make piracy more difficult without hurting the end users, please, I'd love to hear them.
EDIT: And ffs, find somewhere, anywhere in this thread or any other, where I've talked about the companies involved being "evil". You're being ridiculous.
My fault.
For some reason I thought you were saying it was the EA scheme had a bunch of tangible benefits, rather than Steam.
Edit: Changing it, actually... making it more like the Steam model, where you authenticate once, and then only have to do so again when you add new game content (I assume this means patching, as well).
Defending the DRM scheme? You said this last thread and it wasn't true then either. Funny how you take trying to counteract assumptions about how overly restrictive it obviously must be(which are made with the same facts as I have for my "defending") as defending.
I responded to someone saying that if they had any hardware changes, they'd have to call EA CS.
I said that there are "many" hardware changes that will not affect the activation.
You said that I can't know that.
I said that it's a safe assumption based on what the bioware rep said and an idea of different ways the hardware checks were being done.
You said that I have no way of knowing that because they only had one piece of equipment that was replaced with one piece of equipment and beyond that it's unknowable.
I then explained that the company will probably act logically with no random stupidity or malice that makes them do anything else.
Clear enough for you?
This newseth is so olde ye olde shoppe canterbury tales.
To me it sounds like this decision was made by some executive types who couldn't tell a gamer from an excel user.
Hopefully EA will follow Mass Effect's example with Spore...
Wouldn't it have to re-register every time you switch machines?
Let the rage subside!
That could be, depending on how it's implemented. If all it does is scan for hardware changes every 10 days and decrement the number of registrations left, if I auth once on my PC, a second time on my laptop, and a third back on my PC, my laptop is now locked out.
I searched for 'Tycho' and I'm only seeing my post.
So uh... swing and a miss?
I'm sorry, does Tycho posting it make it any different than the other articles that were already posted? Or was it just to add in that Tycho posted it as well?
Any reason you're being a complete dick? Pardon the fuck out of me for pointing out the guy that brought this to much of the internet's attention is saying they've backed off.
Thing is, those things have already been pointed out. Not only that, they're not exactly true. They're removing the 10-day check, but keeping the auth limit. I wasn't trying to be a dick with my first response, so I'm sorry if you thought I was, but the "swing and a miss" comment rubbed me the wrong way. The exact same articles Tycho posted point out how it's not really the old style, either.
Then you'll have one activation free, and you can buy a new computer, put it on that, and still play it!
You have 3 activations.