EA and DRM

[SteveThaiBinh]

An idea has occurred to me for reconciling my desire for game longevity and for EA's desire for controlling casual piracy through DRM. I would accept something akin to a time-limited DRM. Take, for example, the requirement for online authentication. In case of time-limited DRM, this means that the game needs to be authenticated online after every install for say 5 years after its official release. After the 5 years expires, online authentication is no longer needed to install and/or play the game. The same could apply to limited installs. The installs would be limited to X (probably 3, 4 or 5 with the possibility of getting additional installs authorized by EA customer service), but just like for online authentication, this limitation would only apply for Y years (for example for 5 years) after which point installs would become unlimited. I think this would be a reasonable compromise - most companies don't derive much more benefit from games after 5-years (or whatever time-period would be set), but a some of us gamers, want to play our old games even after decades, to refresh the spirit they evoked for us many years back.

 

If EA would switch to something like my idea above, I would be placated, as for me rental/longevity is the main issue at stake in the DRM debate. Of course, this depends on the existence of some tamper-proof (or relatively so) internal computer clock to function, which could be checked by the installation program to see whether the DRM in question should expire or not. I don't know whether such a clock is present in computers today - somebody better versed in computing could perhaps enlighten us. I would not accept this being dependent on some EA clock over the internet or something along those lines, because this would bring us back to square one (what if EA goes bankrupt and thus the clock disappears, etcetera, etcetera).

That would deal with one of my issues with the DRM, yes - issue a no-CD no-DRM patch two or three years after the game came out, though that doesn't deal with the issue that apparently Securom can't be uninstalled!

 

I notice that the threat to break people's games for discussing DRM on EA's forums has been lifted. To be honest, it always looked like someone was exceeding their authority in saying what they did, and it was unlikely to be in line with EA policy or the EULA.

[random n00b]

I'm going to try again, without the obviously taboo references. (!)

 

 

That would deal with one of my issues with the DRM, yes - issue a no-CD no-DRM patch two or three years after the game came out, though that doesn't deal with the issue that apparently Securom can't be uninstalled!

IIRC, it was the same with Starforce 3. It's difficult not to label this kind of software as "malware".

 

Anyone can confirm if the version included in NWN2 is left behind when the game is uninstalled as well?

 

 

There is no way, though, that I am transitioning to a pay-to-play model. Very simply, I don't rent stuff if it can be at all avoided - one of the reasons why I don't play MMORPGs. The only things I rent are those that I absolutely need and cannot afford to buy. Only "place to live" falls in this category at the moment. Games are something I like, but don't need. If the industry transitions to the pay-to-play model, I will simply stop playing computer games. I like computer games, but there are many other possibilities for spending my free time and should the pay-to-play model be adopted I will make use of them.

So, going to the movies or the arcade is unacceptable to you?

 

I don't think it's reasonable to discount a different model beforehand based on speculation alone. It could be a better model than the current one depending on how they choose to implement it - but it could be worse too.

[Slowtrain]

I don't know as that makes much of a difference. New games don't seem to have the same longevity appeal as the old games do. To me anyway. the appeal of the older games is that they have gameplay that you can't find today, whereas most of todays games have gameplay that is pretty standard and will just be duplicated by the next generation of games in a year or two except with better graphics.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know as that makes much of a difference. New games don't seem to have the same longevity appeal as the old games do. To me anyway. the appeal of the older games is that they have gameplay that you can't find today, whereas most of todays games have gameplay that is pretty standard and will just be duplicated by the next generation of games in a year or two except with better graphics.

 

That's a really good point. I keep waiting for a new game that will enthrall me for more than a month, but it just hasn't happened in the last few years. The only recent games that I've played over a longer period is Civilization IV.

[Gorgon]

These days 'puter games are dumb blondes, with very few exceptions, but we do still get decent CRPGs. On the other hand I don't share in the nostalgia to the point of appreciating games that are just too visually unstimulating. Daggerfall, JA, etc.

 

Give me infinity engine or better at least.

[Gorgon]

EA has simply shifted the basline, you pay full price for limited use. Maybe they intend to offer up limited plays at lower costs, the market will decide that. If it's a 'killer app' like Crysis that people are going to buy no matter what, then probably not.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Gorgon

[Slowtrain]

These days 'puter games are dumb blondes, with very few exceptions, but we do still get decent CRPGs. On the other hand I don't share in the nostalgia to the point of appreciating games that are just too visually unstimulating. Daggerfall, JA, etc.

 

Give me infinity engine or better at least.

 

I'll just point out here that I don't choose to replay Daggerfall and Jagged Alliance 2 so many years after their releases because they are old and ugly and I like old and ugly games. I play them DESPITE the fact they are old and ugly since there are no contemporary alternatives. The oldness and ugliness doesn't matter; its the gameplay (and the fact that I can still get them to run of course).

 

For me, there are no IE games I would bother playing nowadays though they are definitely less ugly than Daggerfall and Jag 2 simply because the gameplay doesn't appeal to me as much.

 

After a certain point graphical quality really becomes pretty irrelevant.

[random n00b]

Guys, guys.

 

Have you tried taking your pink colored glasses off for a second?

[Hurlshort]

Guys, guys.

 

Have you tried taking your pink colored glasses off for a second?

 

Do you mean rose colored?

 

We are talking about video games here, not national security. It's hard to take these discussions too seriously. At the end of the day, EA is a company that develops and publishes GAMES. They aren't a weapons manufacturer and I don't really buy the whole Evil Empire label people love to give them.

[random n00b]

Oh, crap. Lost in translation or something.

[Slowtrain]

Guys, guys.

 

Have you tried taking your pink colored glasses off for a second?

 

 

 

explain, please?

[random n00b]

There's nothing to explain, it's my opinion!

[aries101]

I like Magister Lajciak's solution to the problem with drm in games. I just want to add that I want the limited activations to go away after 12-18 months after the game's initial release and the activations to go away after 24-36 months after the gam's release. On the principle, though, I agree.

 

I also agree that most games today are not worthy of replayability. And this is exactly what EA is going for, limited replayability. Most people today will probably only play through a game, any game, not just an rpg, 2-3, maybe 4 times or so. Then, they will move on the next 'shiny ones' to quote Cespenar from a Bioware game.

[Slowtrain]

There's nothing to explain, it's my opinion!

 

 

As you wish.

 

Just a note however that opinions are often the things most worth explaining if you have somebody who wants to listen.

 

But if you choose not to share, I certainly won't try to make you do so.

[Azure79]

I don't know as that makes much of a difference. New games don't seem to have the same longevity appeal as the old games do. To me anyway. the appeal of the older games is that they have gameplay that you can't find today, whereas most of todays games have gameplay that is pretty standard and will just be duplicated by the next generation of games in a year or two except with better graphics.

 

That's a really good point. I keep waiting for a new game that will enthrall me for more than a month, but it just hasn't happened in the last few years. The only recent games that I've played over a longer period is Civilization IV.

 

Pretty much agree with this. The only games that came out recently that I've replayed is NWN 2 and The Witcher. Both basically CRPGs. Games I play continuously are Romance of the Three Kingdoms strategy game, Starcraft and the old IE games.

 

I also hope for a new game to come out that will captivate me for the years to come.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The notion that DRM is encouraging piracy has reached the mainstream British media, I'm happy to report:

 

For all the claims of DRM preventing piracy, this particular instance only punishes legitimate purchasers of the game. If anything, it encourages piracy as the DRM within Spore was circumvented by industrious hackers weeks before its release anyway. They didn't have access to the online portent of the game, but didn't have to deal with a lot of the nonsense that comes with installing the game legitimately.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/tom_hoggins/b...ttle_of_the_drm

[Moatilliatta]

That guy must be smoking something.

If anything, it encourages piracy as the DRM within Spore was circumvented by industrious hackers weeks before its release anyway.

how does circumvented DRM == encouraging piracy?

 

I also like how noone seem to agree exactly how long before release that Spore was cracked.

[Humodour]

If anything, it encourages piracy as the DRM within Spore was circumvented by industrious hackers weeks before its release anyway.

how does circumvented DRM == encouraging piracy?

 

Ummm where do you think people get the DRM cracks from? 'Piracy' groups. That means so-called pirates are giving ordinary people what they want, and in doing so establishing a higher level of legitimacy and penetration.

 

It's not at all clear that DRM has any impact on levels of piracy; it's simply that the standard industry assumption is that DRM stops piracy, fingers crossed. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover it's the opposite.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Ummm where do you think people get the DRM cracks from? 'Piracy' groups.

 

Not always, sometimes people make no-cd cracks and stop at that step...

[Moatilliatta]

I still fail to see the link between piracy groups cracking DRM and EA encouraging piracy.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Killian Kalthorne]

EA makes games people want to play, places DRM people don't want to have, then other people crack the DRM and set it up as free downloads, so then the people who want to play EA games with out DRM download them, thusly because of DRM is placed by EA those who would have bought the games if not for DRM are now encouraged to get the Non-DRM pirate version and download it for free.

 

[Hurlshort]

Hey guys,

 

I just heard that the 3 installs limit actually refers to 3 different computers. That means that you can re-install unlimited times on the same computer, and it's only a problem when you get a new computer. Is that true?

 

I'll be honest, if it is true, I'm going to find these arguments against DRM pretty absurd. How many computers do you go through? Even if you buy a new one every year, you are still looking at 5 years worth of installations, and they've also now talked about deactivating it after a certain time.

[Gorgon]

Well thats reasuring I suppose, although as with windows activation, It wouldn't be able to tell certain hardware changes from being another computer. Thats bad news if you upgrade a lot.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Talk is cheap. They should announce before the game is released that the installation/activation limit will be dropped after two years. That would be okay.

 

If we're counting each computer as a completely new processor, motherboard and hard drive, I've played my Quest for Glory V on about six completely different computers over the years. If we're counting each change of component such as graphics card or motherboard as a new computer in its own right, that number shoots up a fair bit. Whether you set the limit at 3, 5 or 10 computers, I will hit it in the end because I play old games, and I think I'm entitled to do that even if EA doesn't approve.

[Deraldin]

Hey guys,

 

I just heard that the 3 installs limit actually refers to 3 different computers. That means that you can re-install unlimited times on the same computer, and it's only a problem when you get a new computer. Is that true?

 

I'll be honest, if it is true, I'm going to find these arguments against DRM pretty absurd. How many computers do you go through? Even if you buy a new one every year, you are still looking at 5 years worth of installations, and they've also now talked about deactivating it after a certain time.

 

It's true. If nothing changes on your computer you are free to re-install as many times as you want. If you have/want to swap out parts, that can change the hardware signature and will use up a new activation. It wouldn't be quite so bad if they would tell you just tell you what constitutes a new machine. Some people have been able to get away with changing video cards, while others have been dinged by sound cards or even NICs. Also, I'm unaware just how a reformat affects the whole process, but I've been under the impression that such a thing would also require a new activation.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Deraldin