EA: Making DRM Disappear in One Easy Step
Will DRM by any other name still stink up the joint?
Read Full Article
Will DRM by any other name still stink up the joint?
Read Full Article
EA: Making DRM Disappear in One Easy Step
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Well, luckily for us, and quite unfortunately for EA, there are definitely enough people that are going to throw this whole "It's not DRM" bullshit in their face, over and over and over again. Maybe they don't actually know what DRM stands for. Maybe they think it's the brand name of whatever DRM they used to use. This is giving them the benefit of the doubt, while not actually saying that EA actually has any level of intelligence in their PR heads. But regardless, they can say it all they want, it's the same ole shit that is gonna hold me back from buying games they publish.
Way to go, EA. Good thing there's nothing on yer horizon I could possibly care less about.
Way to go, EA. Good thing there's nothing on yer horizon I could possibly care less about.
They can name it whatever they want. Gamer's should subject themselves to a system where the publisher is in full control of the game. I want to be able to play my games in 10 or 20 years. I don't want to have to download a crack just because the developer's servers are not up anymore.
for 50 euros I think i have the right to play a single player game when and where i want, without the need of an internet connection. For 50 euros i'm buying a game, not renting it.
for 50 euros I think i have the right to play a single player game when and where i want, without the need of an internet connection. For 50 euros i'm buying a game, not renting it.
who do you think usually makes these kinda decisions? It certainly is not the developer. Publishers like EA are the ones cramming this crap down our throat, and in turn causing those developers to lose more money than they'd lose due to pirating. If anything, we need to put full control back into the hands of the developers. Publishers do nothing but create problems by throwing out deadlines, pushing out incomplete games, and making DRM mandatory.Freemon said:
See, if this was a multi-player only title, they could actually say that and not really be lying - one hardly views the requirement for a constant internet connection to play WoW as a form of DRM after all. All the 'benefits' EA was touting? All of those features are how MMOs traditionally operate, since the account is all important and they could care less how many machines you actually use to access it, ergo no installation limits, etc..
But I'm pretty sure C&C4 has a single player portion, placing this firmly back into the Ubisoft and AC2 category of PR nonsense. I'll give EA some credit though, as they are certainly better at it than Ubisoft - if I read their announcement without critically examining it, it really does sound like a good thing they are doing.
But I'm pretty sure C&C4 has a single player portion, placing this firmly back into the Ubisoft and AC2 category of PR nonsense. I'll give EA some credit though, as they are certainly better at it than Ubisoft - if I read their announcement without critically examining it, it really does sound like a good thing they are doing.
I can't wait to see "EA servers down on opening day" and "Cyber Terrorists behind attack EA servers" to start popping up in the news section.
The 'progressive' approach here is hilarious.
The 'progressive' approach here is hilarious.
If that does happen there shall be more than a few chuckles and red faces I am sure...as Ubisoft found out Oh so well.DeadlyYellow said:
I think the DRM thing is here to stay, in one form or another...but it seemes everyone has there own name for it
So basically, EA has discovered the miracle of doublespeak, sort of like the time when the Bush administration solved the problem of hunger in America by renaming it: "There are no hungry people anymore--now there are just people who occasionally experience 'low food security.'"
Although I don't like the system, at least this is marginally better than Ubisoft's approach, you do get something, just not a very good something, in return for putting up with their DRM (ie. continued ability to communicate with the community while in any sort of game and cross single-player multiplayer experience gains). I still believe that something needs to be done to stop pirates and I hope that if this path is inevitable, judging by the fact that 2 major developers are doing it it looks like it might be going that way, the EA system where they at least give you improved features in return is a bit better. Maybe in time the developers will come up with particularly good systems for forcing you to be online at all times when playing that give you loads of features that just wouldn't be possible in a purely offline game, I doubt it, but it would be a form of DRM that I would be happier with.
This is genius, it's evil, but it's genius. It's already too late for gamers to win this fight. It's was over when people bought assassin's creed 2 on the PC. Have you ever tried to win an argument against someone using circular logic? It can't be done.
Can't wait for the "they have a right to protect their product" people to start posting. that always gets a couple laughs from me.
Can't wait for the "they have a right to protect their product" people to start posting. that always gets a couple laughs from me.
This wouldn't be bad if always-on internet was universal with a 0% dropout rate. The benefits it brings are actually pretty great.
But it's still DRM, by definition. At the end of the day you have to be logged in for authentication. If that doesn't fall under the heading of digital rights management I don't know what does. You can't just lie your way out of it.
The other day Cliffy B posted on Twitter something along the lines of "since when is Steam not a form of DRM?" which led to me having a debate with my wife about what constitutes DRM. Ultimately we agreed any form of digital copy protection - from CD-keys to Ubisoft's DRM - is Digital Rights Management by definition, and the fact that it exists is not in and of itself a bad thing.
But what we have come to know as DRM is something else. It's a remorseless, gamestealing beast. It is a gentle nuzzling on our shoulder that reminds us that erect gamedev penises are in place, ready to rape our precious gaming buttholes at any time. It's a DRM that requires an always-on connection. It's needing to login for authentication every time. It's install limits. It installs spyware on our computers and sometimes it just doesn't let us play the game no matter how many arbitrary conditions we meet.
When people think of DRM they don't think of good, thoughtful, helpful Digital Rights Management. They think of the villainised DRM you might see in a propoganda cartoon. EA thinks by presenting a good image they are evading the definition of DRM and they are not.
The difference between Ubisoft and EA right now is marketing.
Ubisoft said "you will need an always on internet connection" and gamers told them to fuck off.
EA says "there is no DRM... but look at all this cool shit we're letting you do by requiring you have an always on internet connection!" and hope gamers keep remembering it's not DRM when the authentication servers go down.
But it's still DRM, by definition. At the end of the day you have to be logged in for authentication. If that doesn't fall under the heading of digital rights management I don't know what does. You can't just lie your way out of it.
The other day Cliffy B posted on Twitter something along the lines of "since when is Steam not a form of DRM?" which led to me having a debate with my wife about what constitutes DRM. Ultimately we agreed any form of digital copy protection - from CD-keys to Ubisoft's DRM - is Digital Rights Management by definition, and the fact that it exists is not in and of itself a bad thing.
But what we have come to know as DRM is something else. It's a remorseless, gamestealing beast. It is a gentle nuzzling on our shoulder that reminds us that erect gamedev penises are in place, ready to rape our precious gaming buttholes at any time. It's a DRM that requires an always-on connection. It's needing to login for authentication every time. It's install limits. It installs spyware on our computers and sometimes it just doesn't let us play the game no matter how many arbitrary conditions we meet.
When people think of DRM they don't think of good, thoughtful, helpful Digital Rights Management. They think of the villainised DRM you might see in a propoganda cartoon. EA thinks by presenting a good image they are evading the definition of DRM and they are not.
The difference between Ubisoft and EA right now is marketing.
Ubisoft said "you will need an always on internet connection" and gamers told them to fuck off.
EA says "there is no DRM... but look at all this cool shit we're letting you do by requiring you have an always on internet connection!" and hope gamers keep remembering it's not DRM when the authentication servers go down.