So Who Is DRM For Anyway?

[Lightknight]

You're right, the raw performance increase isn't that great although more of the Z97 boards allow turbo boost on all cores simultaneously which is pretty sweet and not something that shows in the raw stats but makes quite a difference straight out of the box as a Devils Canyon chip will run all cores at the same speed as a heavily (not extreme) overclocked i7. I mainly wanted upgrade paths in the future, Ivy Bridge was pretty much done along with the Z77 platform and apart from buying pimped DRAM there was nothing left to upgrade.

My Z97 has SATA Express, M.2 and processors coming out in the future (Broadwell) so I will get another couple of years out of it. I think the main thing this console generation will do to games is a jump in VRAM requirements, all of the extra post processing and other effects eat up more VRAM than we are used too even at lower resolutions.

Sounds really nice but I think I'd like to wait until my specs come down below 100 FPS on high settings before taking that route. It is a marginal enough upgrade to make waiting worth it because if that day comes two years from now where I feel like I need an upgrade I'll be able to get a higher performing CPU than whatever you got for cheaper (assuming technology keeps doing what it does). But that's not to say you aren't getting a much more powerful CPU than what I got a couple years ago. You and I are just in a fun ol' Yin and Yang cycle where sometimes I'll be ahead of you and other times you'll be ahead of me. I'd take a picture of my machine but I never saw the point in spilling an extra $50 for a case. Maybe next time I do a full machine replacement.

I just built my brother a PC from CyberPowerPC. That one looks pretty darn slick since they only offer interesting looking cases.

In the meantime, it's just GPU upgrades for me.

But I do have an overclocked i7, so perhaps that's why I'm not seeing the reason.

 

[Lightknight]

Another great article, Shamus. DRM needs to go die in a hole with day-one DLC and hard-capped frame rates.

Welcome to the thread.

You should note that this DRM doesn't impact the vast majority of consumers, helps lock out cheaters, and actually prevents pirates from being able to mass distribute the game for online playing.

It's basically the first time we're seeing DRM that does hurt cheaters and pirates but doesn't hurt regular consumers.

So I'd rather they just perfect this so we don't get all the other nonsense.

 

[NLS]

This reminds me of my own situation with Dragon Age Inquisition, where we bought a boxed copy of the game (because fuck downloading it over Australian internet), then found you can only have it installed on one Origin account at a time, meaning we can't play multiplayer and have to kick each other off every time one of us wants to play it. We live under the same roof, these sort of restrictions are just asinine.

If you had bought it for a console, you'd still only be able to play it on one system at a time because there's only one disc, so I don't see how this is so horrible exactly?

It's installed on both computers, no disc required. Not to get all Master Race-y on you, but these aren't the limits of the consoles that apply here. It's the limits of the "one account, one install" DRM that nobody asked for. If this were the old days, we could both have it installed and be able to play it at the same time. At the moment, we have to make do with offline mode, but that means we can't play multiplayer with each other.

What? You bought 1 copy of the game and expect it to work on 2 computers at the same time with multiplayer?

Ok, no one responded the first time I pointed this out. So I'll try again:

1. This DRM would impact almost NO legitimate customer. You have to install it on 8 machines in a short amount of time. Once locked, it is a timed lock so eventually you will be able to install it on more machines.

2. This would only impact mass distributions of the same copy.

3. Because it tracks the computer hardware and is checked by the server rather than the software, this may actually be an effective two-factor authentication that finally actually works. In order for someone to trick the system they'd have to go through major hoops like ghosting the same hardware right down to the MAC or generating a new viable license with every distributed copy. These are major hurdles for people and aren't as simple as just cracking the Software. The fact that the software doing the verification is on the server side makes all the difference.

So really, it seems to be the first bit of DRM I've ever seen that may actually be doing it right. Non-invasive to likely every legitimate customer and only harmful to mass distributors of the same license (aka Pirates).

Does someone have a real complaint about this? A real problem that isn't just the "spirit of the thing" they're bristling at? Seriously, because I'm scratching my head here and wondering what sort of person would rapidly install the same license more than 8 times within a short time period? Laptop, a couple home computers, a couple friend's? Sure. But 8?

I could easily imagine this being standard DRM in the future and I honestly don't have a problem with it if that's all it does.

I read your posts and...
I agree.
I get that DRM is one of the big swear words around here, but jeez when some good DRM comes around, people still complain.

 

[Lightknight]

Ok, no one responded the first time I pointed this out. So I'll try again:

1. This DRM would impact almost NO legitimate customer. You have to install it on 8 machines in a short amount of time. Once locked, it is a timed lock so eventually you will be able to install it on more machines.

2. This would only impact mass distributions of the same copy.

3. Because it tracks the computer hardware and is checked by the server rather than the software, this may actually be an effective two-factor authentication that finally actually works. In order for someone to trick the system they'd have to go through major hoops like ghosting the same hardware right down to the MAC or generating a new viable license with every distributed copy. These are major hurdles for people and aren't as simple as just cracking the Software. The fact that the software doing the verification is on the server side makes all the difference.

So really, it seems to be the first bit of DRM I've ever seen that may actually be doing it right. Non-invasive to likely every legitimate customer and only harmful to mass distributors of the same license (aka Pirates).

Does someone have a real complaint about this? A real problem that isn't just the "spirit of the thing" they're bristling at? Seriously, because I'm scratching my head here and wondering what sort of person would rapidly install the same license more than 8 times within a short time period? Laptop, a couple home computers, a couple friend's? Sure. But 8?

I could easily imagine this being standard DRM in the future and I honestly don't have a problem with it if that's all it does.

I read your posts and...
I agree.
I get that DRM is one of the big swear words around here, but jeez when some good DRM comes around, people still complain.

Thanks for taking the time. I came into this thread all gung ho to condemn EA yet again but the facts shocked me. This is the very first time that I can remember being pleasantly surprised with how DRM is implemented.

I understand people jumping the gun here though. EA and DRM? It's basically the devil and his favorite dog going out for a stroll.

But it just doesn't seem to be the same old thing here. EA is being a jerk when they require Origin to play their games. They aren't being a jerk when they implement this DRM.