EA: Making DRM Disappear in One Easy Step
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
"See, digital rights management is an intrusive form of intellectual property rights protection that maximizes the inconvenience of legitimate game buyers while having absolutely no measurable impact whatsoever on videogame piracy."
That is not true.
That is not at all the definition of DRM.
DRM is, quite simply, any technology that stops people from using technology illegally. It doesn't work as well as people would like, but it does work. There's a pretty neat guide on the subject here [http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html].
It's been given a bad name by pirates, though, and that bad name's spread to legitimate users. It's often not as bad as it seems.
Look, Securom? Works fine for most people, and the latest version simply says you can't install in X number of computers (set by the publisher) simultaneously. Securom did have a CD-burning issue there for a while, but they fixed it. I personally never had a single problem, and those rootkit rumors were crap. TAGES? Again, not a horrible issues. You go to a pirate site, and you'll find pirates complaining about how awful it is. It's a ***** to crack. Then there was that one, I forget the name exactly, that was said to do horrible, horrible things to your computer, make games unplayable, and so forth. I think it was Starforce? Turns out it actually does none of those things and is fairly benign. It also went uncracked for ages.
I checked a few days ago: Ubisoft's DRM? It's still uncracked. Yeah. The pirates who swore to get past it have failed for weeks now to get past it. It's working. The problem is, it is a rare form of DRM that actually does screw over the consumer.
Personally, I don't like having limits on how many times I can install games simultaneously, but I don't even have two computers to install my games on, and when I did, I never needed to play the game on two separate computers at the same time. Install limits? Not horrible. DRM? Not horrible, unless it's bugged like Securom was at one point.
Pirates rail against Steam (I've watched it first hand) saying things like it's spyware and installs rootkits and malware in some idiotic (or perhaps clever, since many legitimate users have turned away from it as well) attempt to get people to not use it and download pirated games.
Me, I'm a reformed pirate. I own all the games I so foolishly and readily pirated, except those two or three titles which I can't find available for purchase anywhere (and believe me, if I could buy them, I would). I love Steam. It's awesome, and gives you an incredible amount of freedom.
But yeah... defining DRM as something that, by nature, is intrusive and having no impact? It's false. Check out games using the full Steam setup; they have noticeably lower piracy rates. Same with Assassin's Creed 2 and games using Starforce.
I'm not saying I support what EA's doing, but the definition of DRM is wrong here. If it needs to be redefined, just so idiotic consumers who think DRM immediately equals bad will stop complaining, then I'm all for it.
/Devil's Advocate
EDIT: Also I think it's stupid that people are suddenly "OH EA IS EVIL!" after one false step. I mean, look at Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I could go on. Tons of their games only include Securom as a disk checker (and guys, games have had disk checkers for years) that deregisters the game once you uninstall. I just did this with Bad Company 2. Stop focusing on one little mistake. You don't like the use in C&C4? Don't buy it. Go buy other games with no intrusive DRM, such as Dragon Age or Bad Company 2. Show them which titles you want to play. Show them you don't want intrusive DRM with your wallet, but don't drop the entire company, one that's tried so hard to turn around in the past few years, because they made one mistake.
The second they eliminated C&C3's Securom stuff in a patch, I went and bought it off of Steam.
That is not true.
That is not at all the definition of DRM.
DRM is, quite simply, any technology that stops people from using technology illegally. It doesn't work as well as people would like, but it does work. There's a pretty neat guide on the subject here [http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html].
It's been given a bad name by pirates, though, and that bad name's spread to legitimate users. It's often not as bad as it seems.
Look, Securom? Works fine for most people, and the latest version simply says you can't install in X number of computers (set by the publisher) simultaneously. Securom did have a CD-burning issue there for a while, but they fixed it. I personally never had a single problem, and those rootkit rumors were crap. TAGES? Again, not a horrible issues. You go to a pirate site, and you'll find pirates complaining about how awful it is. It's a ***** to crack. Then there was that one, I forget the name exactly, that was said to do horrible, horrible things to your computer, make games unplayable, and so forth. I think it was Starforce? Turns out it actually does none of those things and is fairly benign. It also went uncracked for ages.
I checked a few days ago: Ubisoft's DRM? It's still uncracked. Yeah. The pirates who swore to get past it have failed for weeks now to get past it. It's working. The problem is, it is a rare form of DRM that actually does screw over the consumer.
Personally, I don't like having limits on how many times I can install games simultaneously, but I don't even have two computers to install my games on, and when I did, I never needed to play the game on two separate computers at the same time. Install limits? Not horrible. DRM? Not horrible, unless it's bugged like Securom was at one point.
Pirates rail against Steam (I've watched it first hand) saying things like it's spyware and installs rootkits and malware in some idiotic (or perhaps clever, since many legitimate users have turned away from it as well) attempt to get people to not use it and download pirated games.
Me, I'm a reformed pirate. I own all the games I so foolishly and readily pirated, except those two or three titles which I can't find available for purchase anywhere (and believe me, if I could buy them, I would). I love Steam. It's awesome, and gives you an incredible amount of freedom.
But yeah... defining DRM as something that, by nature, is intrusive and having no impact? It's false. Check out games using the full Steam setup; they have noticeably lower piracy rates. Same with Assassin's Creed 2 and games using Starforce.
I'm not saying I support what EA's doing, but the definition of DRM is wrong here. If it needs to be redefined, just so idiotic consumers who think DRM immediately equals bad will stop complaining, then I'm all for it.
/Devil's Advocate
EDIT: Also I think it's stupid that people are suddenly "OH EA IS EVIL!" after one false step. I mean, look at Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I could go on. Tons of their games only include Securom as a disk checker (and guys, games have had disk checkers for years) that deregisters the game once you uninstall. I just did this with Bad Company 2. Stop focusing on one little mistake. You don't like the use in C&C4? Don't buy it. Go buy other games with no intrusive DRM, such as Dragon Age or Bad Company 2. Show them which titles you want to play. Show them you don't want intrusive DRM with your wallet, but don't drop the entire company, one that's tried so hard to turn around in the past few years, because they made one mistake.
The second they eliminated C&C3's Securom stuff in a patch, I went and bought it off of Steam.
I was very suprised, and somewhat excited, when it dawned on me EA was starting to be the "good guys." After they led the delve into DRM, they actually learned their lesson and started to stop using DRM. The whole ACII fiasco made me quite angry at Ubisoft and I was comforted to know EA wasn't going to do something like that.
I was wrong.
EA, you were so close to gaining my trust and then you started hanging out with the wrong friends.
Oh well, Valve and Blizzard never let me down!
I was wrong.
EA, you were so close to gaining my trust and then you started hanging out with the wrong friends.
Oh well, Valve and Blizzard never let me down!
Alright, so what you are implying is;SullyE said:
A)securom is fine because it lets you install the game at least once, and thats fine then. Because I still don't have to format my PC and every time re-install serious sam and deus ex. So with securom, thats not possible, but thats OK, I've played it once?
I am sorry, but that just sounds ridiculous to me. Currently, I have 5 computers in my household. 3 of them belong to me. Now then, if me and a sibling wished to purchase an install limited game such as spore was, we would not be able to purchase a single copy, because we simply would not have enough installs for a single iteration, let alone if we had to format the entire system.
B) Steam is good. Yes, we know that. Occasionally it can screw you over like no other if VAC is accidentally tripped, but it rarely happens. On this point I agree.
It's a semantics arguement is what it is. I suppose on a lot of levels it's not "DRM" as it was previously defined (ie a piece of malware that infects your computer to try and protect a piece of software), but it is a massive inconveinence that is even worse than the worst DRM produced.
Okay, even if one argues it's not DRM, it's still wrong, it's still bad, and it's still a massive problem for legitimate consumers. I do not want to have to be online constantly to play my games, and be at the mercy of internet connections, and the stability of a company's computer. Heck I want to be able to play my games without an internet connection being a nessecity.
In the end though it's up to gamers to decide not to buy their products, if we just whine and continue to purchuse them anyway (which is what usually happens) this will not only continue, but will get worse.
Okay, even if one argues it's not DRM, it's still wrong, it's still bad, and it's still a massive problem for legitimate consumers. I do not want to have to be online constantly to play my games, and be at the mercy of internet connections, and the stability of a company's computer. Heck I want to be able to play my games without an internet connection being a nessecity.
In the end though it's up to gamers to decide not to buy their products, if we just whine and continue to purchuse them anyway (which is what usually happens) this will not only continue, but will get worse.
I'm kinda surprised that more people aren't hitting on this. It's pretty much the exact system Steam offers, only Steam has an online store, no physical disc, game packages, frequent discounts, and the all-important offline-mode, as was mentioned by the perceptive Andy Chalk above.Mr.Tea said:
The whole "repeated statement becomes truth" is absolutely true. EA has long been the big bad of gaming companies, and it looks like this isn't any different. They're just marketing a bad idea by saying it isn't a bad idea.
Gamers:"This is DRM"
EA: "No it's not."
Gamers:"Alright, you've renamed it, but it's still totally-"
EA:"NO IT'S NOT!!"
The first statement is a bit much but basically true. The second statement ... heh ... What you are basically telling everybody here is that you are perfectly fine with renting a game for full price? I don't know about you but I still play all of my old games and love them. Alice, Dungeion Keeper 2, Unreal Tournament 2003, etc ... sure would miss those guys if they had this DRM and the servers were taken off line like with Wal-Mart's music store(yes, it has happened already).psrdirector said:anyone who steals a game to protest DRM, is like someone who goes on a shooting rampage to protest gun laws.
also i will buy C&C4 because he said we should tell ea what they think about this drm
God dammit. I was going to buy C&C 4. I was really stoked for it too. But I guess the only way to stick to my principles here is to put my money where my mouth is, and not let game developers screw me over like that. I know, some would argue that "who isn't online all the time anyway?" But that's not what it's about. My computer is online as long as it's turned on if I have my way, but I don't want to have to have it online. Sometimes my internet breaks down, and what if I want to play skirmish or other offline modes in the meantime?
And yeah, I know, it's a way to also make sure that people don't cheat, since the xp you earn in singleplayer carries over to multiplayer, but Blizzard had a solution to that back in Diablo 2, which was being able to create a character that was saved to your computer, meaning you could copy and manipulate that savegame and character, this character could be played with offline aswell as online But you could also create a character that was saved onto the Battlenet servers, meaning you couldn't mess with it, but could only be played when online. The Battlenet and locally saved characters could not be mixed. Problem solved. But I guess that no solution is better than an old solution.
And yeah, I know, it's a way to also make sure that people don't cheat, since the xp you earn in singleplayer carries over to multiplayer, but Blizzard had a solution to that back in Diablo 2, which was being able to create a character that was saved to your computer, meaning you could copy and manipulate that savegame and character, this character could be played with offline aswell as online But you could also create a character that was saved onto the Battlenet servers, meaning you couldn't mess with it, but could only be played when online. The Battlenet and locally saved characters could not be mixed. Problem solved. But I guess that no solution is better than an old solution.
I decided to personally boycott PC UBisoft games, wont make a deifference in their bottom line really.. And its not like i DON'T always have a solid connection, its just principle..
As current Securom goes, once you uninstall the game, your number of installs is refunded to you. It exists mainly to prevent someone from cheating them out of their money; after all, your license only allows (and you AGREE to a license when you play the game) one copy of the game per machine. The number of concurrent installs is selected by the publisher, and is usually five, because something like only 3% of gamers have five or more gaming computers; in other words, it's completely rational to pick this number.PodX140 said:
All install limits really do is hold you to the agreement you made when you agreed to the the EULA.
DRM is DRM. It's like they're trying to argue that they aren't punching us in the gut because they're just kicking us in the shins now. It's still not something we should be putting-up with as legitimate consumers. EA can call it whatever the fuck they want to, I'll still call it "The reason I won't buy the game".
Great, another company to add to the "Do Not Buy" list. Well, it's EA, so no big loss in quality. Speaking in terms of quantity, however, it is a blow.
So, developers, if you want my money, do not publish with:
Ubisoft
EA
So, developers, if you want my money, do not publish with:
Ubisoft
EA
...
Seriously EA? I was rooting for you to actually be a little smarter. But then, [http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=18770] you disappoint.
*sigh*
Can someone get Kratos on the line? He has a few people on the list that need their heads bashed in. I mean, seriously? Why, oh why, do you feel that always on connections are going to net you more money?
ESPECIALLY with military personnel who are constantly moving around or travelers in the US who just want to play a game without strings attached?
Seriously EA? I was rooting for you to actually be a little smarter. But then, [http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=18770] you disappoint.
*sigh*
Can someone get Kratos on the line? He has a few people on the list that need their heads bashed in. I mean, seriously? Why, oh why, do you feel that always on connections are going to net you more money?
ESPECIALLY with military personnel who are constantly moving around or travelers in the US who just want to play a game without strings attached?
They may have realised that pulling a ubisoft is a bad thing, but 2-3 week before release date is a bit late to react and pull off the DRM. The community reacted so strongly against this that i don't think it'll be a DRM that will stick around for long.
We'll see if their game still come out with this in a month or two. Then it'll make more sense to put them on a "hate list".
We'll see if their game still come out with this in a month or two. Then it'll make more sense to put them on a "hate list".