Online Activation Is a Ripoff

[ShadowKirby]

I agree, I think steam is annoying and gets in the way, I miss the days of discs that installed the game and all you needed was the disk to play it, they were simpler times.

thats how I got Starcraft

And that's how I still play it to this day. Simpler times my boys, simpler times.

But the sad thing is, and World of Goo showed it, that whatever we do or how nice the devs are, pirates will pirate the game just because they don't want to pay. Not some way to stick it up to the man but just to play for free. If it wasn't for the LAN thing, they would "boycott" SC2 for the zerg colors or something.

 

[Kollega]

As always,Shamus is a voice of reason in a convention center full of deaf Hitlers.

 

[SFR]

I do believe Steam only requires you to have run the game once online (for the activation). I like this system. It makes no difference to me, as I only have one, online computer, but I can see where people might dislike needing to activate their game online.

Here's the thing though... Activation in some form is extremely necessary. None is really fool proof, but I'm sure it's stopped quite a few wood be pirates. If this is the case, then there's no way their going to get rid of it. Their a company you know.

I hate discs... I'm really glad I have Steam. I buy all my PC games on there now, so I don't really have to worry about other types of online activation. I can see where your coming from, but I don't think any of this will change anytime soon. Not because companies are evil, but because they want a good idea that they'll get money for the games people are playing.

 

[the1ultimate]

As someone who's gaming PC isn't the one hooked up directly to the internet (because it's a gaming PC and no direct internet access helps keep it fairly safe from hackers), I totally agree that buying a disc which you then have to activate is not only a rip-off, but also an incredible pain.

The restrictions on your amount of installations are very limiting as well, and although some publishers offer activation reversals, it's still too easy to go through activations. Especially if you have a virus that destroyed your OS. Twice.

But anyway, I've always taken the long-term view that perhaps in about 20 years I might want to play some of my old "retro" games. And a disc that won't install the game on its own isn't much good for this. If the company does still exist they'd probably want me to purchase a new copy of the game, and if it doesn't there is nothing to activate my copy of the game with anyway.

I don't like steam either, partly because all those updates are rather demanding on my meagre download limit, but also because ultimately it has the same flaw; if Valve goes out of business, then all my steam games will only be available to me on the last computer I installed them on, and when that computer dies, I have no chance of being able to re-play the games I bought.

Come to think of it, discs are almost as perishable as companies, so I guess I'm waiting for a better system too.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

So arguing, as Shamus seems to do, that if enforcement isn't perfect it shouldn't happen is a non-argument. It's like arguing if we can't prevent murder perfectly, we ought to legalize it.

The flaw in your logic is that DRM is like the system in Minority Report, to keep consistent with your comparison to murder. Shamus's point isn't that they should just give-up, but that they should find better ways to combat it (IE: Adding more value to the product). The current system of adding DRM to the product is an attempted preemptive method of preventing piracy, just like the Pre-cogs were an attempted preemptive method of preventing murder.

So imagine the world of Minority Report where homicides are still at an all-time high. Do you honestly think the government would continue to fund this program that's supposed to prevent murder when it clearly isn't working? Yet here we are in our world and developers are continuing to pour resources into the same system that fails to do the one thing that it's supposed to do.

The answer isn't to give-up. The answer is to find something else to combat it. Trying to prevent piracy by way of programming code is like trying to prevent thievery by putting something shinier next to your stuff. The guy is there to perform a specific crime, and the only obstacle you placed in front of him is the very thing he's good at doing because of the type of crime he's committing.

 

[PodX140]

Funny that you write about this now. I just recently bought Empire:Total War and once I installed it and played for a while I decided to move the icon to the desktop from the weird location it was hidden in before. It was my first time using Steam and I didn't know how to start the game without the icon and I got tired of using the search function to start it. Turns out moving the icon was a mistake. A big one. The game couldn't find a certain steam_api.dll file anymore and since I didn't know where the icon had been before, I couldn't move it back. I had to reinstall Steam and the game in order to make it work again. Believe me, that was not the way I was planning on spending my first day with the game.

You do realise that you removed the exe from the folder?

Thats like removing a dll file from the registry and expecting windows to run it because "i only moved it."

Move it back to where you took it from, and make a short cut. Problem solved. Next time, try to think logically and learn from the mistake?

PS. Work in customer service for a compu-world type store. you wouldnt imagine the things I have to put up with. If you were offended by this comment, I appologise in advance.

 

[Andronicus]

I am proud to say that I have never downloaded a cracked version of a game! I sometimes download emulaters to play really old games, because those games are simply not available to purchase any more. I'm not sure if emulated games are the same as cracked games; if you believe they are, then disregard my previous exclamation. Even if I did want to download a cracked version, I wouldn't know how to use a torrent, however I choose to believe that this is due to my morals rather than just thick-headedness. So there.

I am a big fan of the "In Rainbows" style of "Pay-What-You-Want" digital distribution. To those not familiar with Radiohead, basically you paid whatever you thought the album was worth, you downloaded it, and it was yours. No disk protection/nasty licensing gremlins trying to steal your stuff. Simple as that.

As has been stated, as has been alluded to by the statistics surrounding the pirating of World of Goo (Note that I use this as an example delicately, as many still dispute it), people don't crack games because of DRM, they do so because they don't want to pay. Fine. Okay. If people don't want to pay for a game, but still want to play it, they will pirate it. Let's take this as an accepted fact. Now, let's assume for a moment that some people don't want to buy a game for the DRM, and will pirate it for that reason. The pay-what-you-want plan eliminates this as well. So, basically, what you have is a product that is absolutely, completely, ineffably pointless to pirate. If you can already get it for free direct from the producers, then why would you need to spend time and effort looking for a cracked version?

However, this opens several other points of contention, as I am well aware. Firstly, and most obviously, one might ask themselves "Well, if what you're basically doing is offering it for free, how is this any different from pirating it?" Well, as I said before, people are going to pirate a game anyway. There's nothing we can really do about it, so the entire games industry needs nothing short of revolution in the ways they distribute games. If people aren't willing to have money forced out of them for a product, what we need to do is coax it out of them gently while they're not looking. Theoretically, if someone visits a site where they intend to download a game on a pay-what-you-want basis, the environment they are put in needs to encourage them to pay for the pruduct. Sure, you'll get a million people paying $5 for a game obviously worth about $50 more, but at least they're not pirating it for free. A million people paying $5 is better than several million people paying nothing. Also, the sites where these people go can include advertising for other products on sale, exposing to potential ex-pirate to consider paying, dare I say it, more money for other products. Yahtzee might not like fans, but fans are the sort of people who would pay full price regardless of whether they were asked to cough up or not, because that's what fans do.

Secondly, this really only applies to digital distribution, for obvious reasons; if you walk into your local GAME store and pick up the latest copy of Tony Hawk's Most Recent Generic Skateboarding Game TM, they aren't going to let you walk out because you chose to get it for free, rather than pay for it. Really, there isn'y much can be done about this, but as I said, this is nothing short of distribution revolution; times change, we must adapt, as must the industry.

Digital ditribution is the future. We must embrace it, and adapt as necassary. Console games can be sold DRM free in stores, and there will obviously be outrage at the fact that computer game players are getting theirs for free, but at the moment I don't think this is such an issue. There are plenty of reasons why people would want to play a game on a console rather than a computer.

Anyway, that's my solution.

 

[F1ak3r]

Thank you for this. I myself am an offline gamer (here on a BlackBerry), and I can't tell you how irritating DRM has been for me in the past. Broadband is low quality and expensive in my country, so it's not reasonable to expect me to connect every single time I want to play a game. Especially if the game is singleplayer. >_<

On the subject of BioShock, there's a cool site I found, http://www.unlockbioshock.com which gives you an unlock code for your CD key. Worked perfectly for when I last needed to activate.

 

[PodX140]

I am proud to say that I have never downloaded a cracked version of a game! I sometimes download emulaters to play really old games, because those games are simply not available to purchase any more. I'm not sure if emulated games are the same as cracked games; if you believe they are, then disregard my previous exclamation. Even if I did want to download a cracked version, I wouldn't know how to use a torrent, however I choose to believe that this is due to my morals rather than just thick-headedness. So there.

I am a big fan of the "In Rainbows" style of "Pay-What-You-Want" digital distribution. To those not familiar with Radiohead, basically you paid whatever you thought the album was worth, you downloaded it, and it was yours. No disk protection/nasty licensing gremlins trying to steal your stuff. Simple as that.

As has been stated, as has been alluded to by the statistics surrounding the pirating of World of Goo (Note that I use this as an example delicately, as many still dispute it), people don't crack games because of DRM, they do so because they don't want to pay. Fine. Okay. If people don't want to pay for a game, but still want to play it, they will pirate it. Let's take this as an accepted fact. Now, let's assume for a moment that some people don't want to buy a game for the DRM, and will pirate it for that reason. The pay-what-you-want plan eliminates this as well. So, basically, what you have is a product that is absolutely, completely, ineffably pointless to pirate. If you can already get it for free direct from the producers, then why would you need to spend time and effort looking for a cracked version?

However, this opens several other points of contention, as I am well aware. Firstly, and most obviously, one might ask themselves "Well, if what you're basically doing is offering it for free, how is this any different from pirating it?" Well, as I said before, people are going to pirate a game anyway. There's nothing we can really do about it, so the entire games industry needs nothing short of revolution in the ways they distribute games. If people aren't willing to have money forced out of them for a product, what we need to do is coax it out of them gently while they're not looking. Theoretically, if someone visits a site where they intend to download a game on a pay-what-you-want basis, the environment they are put in needs to encourage them to pay for the pruduct. Sure, you'll get a million people paying $5 for a game obviously worth about $50 more, but at least they're not pirating it for free. A million people paying $5 is better than several million people paying nothing. Also, the sites where these people go can include advertising for other products on sale, exposing to potential ex-pirate to consider paying, dare I say it, more money for other products. Yahtzee might not like fans, but fans are the sort of people who would pay full price regardless of whether they were asked to cough up or not, because that's what fans do.

Secondly, this really only applies to digital distribution, for obvious reasons; if you walk into your local GAME store and pick up the latest copy of Tony Hawk's Most Recent Generic Skateboarding Game TM, they aren't going to let you walk out because you chose to get it for free, rather than pay for it. Really, there isn'y much can be done about this, but as I said, this is nothing short of distribution revolution; times change, we must adapt, as must the industry.

Digital ditribution is the future. We must embrace it, and adapt as necassary. Console games can be sold DRM free in stores, and there will obviously be outrage at the fact that computer game players are getting theirs for free, but at the moment I don't think this is such an issue. There are plenty of reasons why people would want to play a game on a console rather than a computer.

Anyway, that's my solution.

Unless the late night thing is getting to me, what you are essentially saying is... give the games away? yeah... I dont think you'll have much profit in that.

No offence, but do you have any clue in how much money goes into making a typical high end game these days? more money than you will ever make in your entire lifespan. you need more than just millions of people paying 30$, you honestly need that 60$ price tag and those several million buyers to boot to just break even.

#2, console players will not be outraged, they will be unbelievably furious. This would be a huge issue. You know how bad of a stink they put up because PC gamers occasionally get the free DLC? you think giving free GAMES wont be a problem?

And #3, (yes i know im bouncing around his post here, but bear with me)On the topic of game industry revolution. A) Why? game companies are still making record profits and what not. They dont need to change all that B) How? There would be absolutely no way to even start something like this, you would be unbelievably in the red before anyone else would look at your company, and then they would say "see? he is in the red, i dont want to be in the red, so lets not do that!" C) Digital distribution is NOT the future. regardless of what you may think, the demographic of those without internet but wish to play games is still a huge profit area. You put in digital distribution and poof! its all gone and you come out with less people to pay you.

Sorry, but there will be no huge changes in the games industry under these circumstances, where the risks are elevated all the higher due to the economy.

And again, this post was not meant to flame, or offend. It is to be intended to be taken as constructive criticism. I appologise in advance to any I may have accidentally offended with my opinion.

 

[Andronicus]

And again, this post was not meant to flame, or offend. It is to be intended to be taken as constructive criticism. I appologise in advance to any I may have accidentally offended with my opinion.

That's ok. As soon as I hit the send button it occurred to me that I might be overestimating my faith in humanity just a little...

It seemed to work okay for Radiohead, but I guess the games industry is a completely different demographic.

That said, I still think digital distribution is the future. Oh, there'll still be the odd game store floating around here and there, and people still without internet, but digital distribution is becoming easier, cheaper and more viable by the day. Even Microsoft have begun offering entire XBox 360 games on XBLA. I don't think it will completely replace hard copies, but it will eventually become the most prominent form of distribution as companies tackle the pirate problems.

The problem here is that people have got it in their minds that downloading cracked versions is cheaper and easier and, quite frankly, they're right. Once people are exposed to the problems that legal copies offer (i.e. actual money, DRM, etc), they will go looking for an alternative. There are little consequences to cracked copies, if any, and plenty of benefits. I guess I just thought we could render the benefits irrelevant by adding the same benefits to legal copies. Too hopeful? Yeah, I guess.

 

[Daruth_Winterwood]

This article reminds me of a time last year when my computer didn't have an internet connection. I also lived in an area where getting the appropriate internet connection just wasn't gonna happen. I used grit my teeth and curl my fists in anger at the unfairness of it all whenever I'd want to buy a new game and the words, requires internet connection to play or Uses Steam appeared in tiny writing on the back of the box.

Now that I have the net it's less of a hassle but I recently bought saints row 2 and I while I was installing it, it had to log on to steam to do update the bloody thing but it was very late at night as I'm a bit of an owl and it wouldn't update so I couldn't play the stupid thing.

Good to see I'm not the only one who's annoyed at the lengths we're expected to go to just to play a game these days.

 

[samsonguy920]

I like Steam, and you can play your single-player games on Steam without being connected to the net, in offline mode. I make a point to only buy games from Steam (if they have online DRM).

That's fine for single-player, but staying in offline, you dont get updates, and multiplayer might be problematic (havent tried getting on MP in a game with Steam in offline, will have to try that sometime soon).
It is a tiny bit reassuring that at least the companies are trying different kinds of DRM and not just sticking with one kind that screws everyone over. (Spore, anyone?) But it is like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to type out Shakespeare's plays. No matter what comes out, someone legit gets the shaft. It's probably a long hard road before something comes out that works for both customer and company. Gaming shouldn't be considered a privilege that can be taken away.

 

[Doug]

Online activation is not reasonable, it's anti-consumer.

Indeed, and thanks to this, I've pretty much decided not to get Starcraft 2 until it comes out on steam without this god damn DRM.

I agree, I think steam is annoying and gets in the way, I miss the days of discs that installed the game and all you needed was the disk to play it, they were simpler times.

Bleh, you forgot about the instruction manual codes, the disc checking software, CD DRM, and all the other gremlins of that era, like when a developer (cough-interplay-cough) could, for example, release a game in the EU with invisible untouchable pick-pocketing children who are made that way because they are too lazy to remove them properly to comply with European law at the time.

They had there good side, but don't kid yourself, it wasn't perfect.

 

[Doug]

I like Steam, and you can play your single-player games on Steam without being connected to the net, in offline mode. I make a point to only buy games from Steam (if they have online DRM).

That's fine for single-player, but staying in offline, you dont get updates, and multiplayer might be problematic (havent tried getting on MP in a game with Steam in offline, will have to try that sometime soon).
It is a tiny bit reassuring that at least the companies are trying different kinds of DRM and not just sticking with one kind that screws everyone over. (Spore, anyone?) But it is like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to type out Shakespeare's plays. No matter what comes out, someone legit gets the shaft. It's probably a long hard road before something comes out that works for both customer and company. Gaming shouldn't be considered a privilege that can be taken away.

Quantum encryption, probably. About the only unhackable technology that I can think of that doesn't screw anyone over but the pirates. And even then, Activison will still find a way to make it EVVVVIL

 

[veloper]

If this company goes out of business, it's because they're out of money. Which means they can't afford to pay a couple of programmers to sit around for a few weeks sifting through decades-old source code to remove all the activation gremlins from all of the dozen or so games they've released over the years. (Keeping in mind that the original programmers have probably moved on, and also keeping in mind that activation systems are imposed by publishers but source code is written by developers. It gets messy very quickly.)

QFT.

It is only a matter of time before games like Bioshock, Mass effect, starcraft 2 will disappear completely, except for the illegal versions (cracked or warez).

Why they do this:
1. no resale
2. they can sell the same, very similar, crap again and again and consumers cannot compare it to the old game, they nolonger own

 

[Gunner 51]

Personally, I don't like these draconian DRMs. It's not good for the consumer - and it only serves to alienate the devs from the punters.

If the devs were serious about beating piracy, they have to play the pirates at their game. They have to offer the same product as they do without all the DRM gubbins that goes with it. (Which as I understand it, seems to turn people away in droves.)

I know I'm a bit of a ragin' Abe Simpson when I say this, but back in my day when you bought a game - you bought a game. It was yours to do with as you saw fit. But nowadays, you are paying for the privilege of asking to play it / purchasing a licence. To me, this is a complete con to the consumer.

If I can purchase a game, then that's where my money would go. I don't want to spend my money on what amounts to be a licence or a licence to ask to play.

 

[Irandrura]

You know, the first game I ever played with online activation was Dawn of War II. It used Steam. I was infuriated at the idea that I should have to install this third party program, run it, register an account, and jump through all these other hoops, just to have the privilege of playing a game I already bought. I felt cheated and conned.

So now I check every PC game box before I buy it. Valve is never getting any more money from me if I can help it, even indirectly. And Steam is supposedly the benign version of DRM!

Ha. Better to stick to strictly offline gaming from hereon.

 

[Phishfood]

hundreds of thoughts on this. I once bought a couple things off itunes. Then I found out that the download is a one off. If my hard drive dies, I never get that song back. I like steam because I haven't yet seen a limit on how many times I can download the game I bought. I even download the ones I have on DVD to skip the updates when I need to.

Ignoring all the technical issues with online activation etc, I have two key points.
1) if you stopped wasting money on DRM and servers to power online activation, surely you could make the game cheaper. An always on server that demands 100% reliability can't be cheap.

2) This method not only hinders pirates (I say hinders, because I have yet to see a game that went uncracked) but it stops me lending the game to a friend. I remember back when Tom lent me starcraft. A week later I went and bought my own copy. Now I have no-one to lend me games. Hrm.