neckthrough

LOL [kotaku.com]

I'm happy EA is re-thinking some of its decisions. But I agree with Deadly that the existing DRM is still way too intrusive. I do think there'll be plenty of people for whom these steps would be enough to stop protesting and start playing EA games again. Good for them -- they protested about what they felt was wrong and managed to change things. For me, EA needs to go one step further. SecuROM must go away. I'd like them to go back to CD-based checks or switch to Steam (I don't know if this is what you meant by riding the trail till the end). I really do want to play Red Alert 3. :lol:

That's a fairly rare occurence even with the traditional model... Funnily enough, EA actually has been doing this... Westwood's original Command & Conquer, and now Red Alert 1, can be downloaded for free from EA's website. Anyways getting back to the issue at hand, I think EA (and other publishers) should make it clear what kind of a pricing model they are going for. As Hurlshot suggested, maybe it makes sense to keep both models alive. I think there's a significant customer base for both models. What's key here is that the model should be clear and prices should be set accordingly. For example, $20 a month for a catalogue of games is IMO a great deal, but $20 a month for a single non-MMO game is a ripoff. For the sales-class customers, just charge them a flat $50 or $60 once and then leave them alone. It's not the actual cost of the sale or rental that's important (market forces will determine that) but the clarity of the model. EA is currently trying to have their cake and eat it too -- they're charging the full $50 up front for a sale (which is the current market price for a full unrestricted game), while simulataneously trying to exert control on usage. This is unacceptable.

Speculative post: Found this interesting interview with John Riccitiello, the CEO of EA. I think it sheds some light on EA's mindset somewhat possibly explains why they are progressively moving towards stricter and stricter restrictions on the ways in which they want customers to experience their content. Here's the interesting bit from the interview:

It is extremely stupid to ban a customer from a GAME they bought just because they complained about it on a forum. I would guess this decision was made by some idiot in lower-level management and doesn't necessarily represent EA's general position. I mean I still hate them, but this is stupidity on an entirely new dimension. For those that didn't bother to read the original link, here's the exact quote from their admin: On the flip side, it's good to hear that upper management is realizing how pissed off customers are. Looks like there are multiple decision makers influencing these contradictory actions (which is understandable given the large organization EA is). In other positive news, Activision seems to have made a genuine attempt at combating piracy.

Yes. And yes. Frankly I'm quite surprised at the animosity that some forumites are showing towards those that are trying to take a stand on this issue. I completely understand that DRM doesn't quite anger many gamers the way it angers some of us (although they would be glad to be rid of it anyway). What I don't understand is why Hurlshot, Hell Kitty and Alanschu are actively trying to discourage and sometimes downright ridicule those that have taken a stance against DRM. Is it too hard for you to accept that there are law-abiding customers that do not pirate games but who are upset about having their fair-use rights systematically stripped away from them? Perhaps you feel their numbers are too low to have an impact. Regardless, don't you feel they're protesting about something that at the end of the day does affect you, no matter how slight the effect may be? Wouldn't you be glad if every publisher adopted Stardock's principles? If so, why discourage and belittle them? Perhaps you guys are just playing the devil's advocate, but that's not the vibe I'm getting from the tone of the posts.

Good question. It's more of a service-based model than a sales-based one. I think I'm okay with it. The "file" on your hard drive is indeed physically a DRM'd music file, but functionally it's mostly behaving as a cache for content you're sort of streaming from the service provider. The music store could have equivalently implemented this simply by requesting you for a certain section of your hard drive on which it maintains its global cache in some custom format. You never really "bought" the song, so IMO it's okay to not expect any fair-use rights related to the product (well, there is no product). As long as the implementation is benign (i.e. the music store doesn't install a rootkit or other junk software on my machine) I'd be fine with it.

ITunes Plus, the Amazon MP3 store and eMusic.com are all DRM free (and now I think Rhapsody has also jumped onto the bandwagon). Amazon and ITunes Plus also sell their all DRM-free tracks in high-quality 256 kbps bitrates. ITunes Plus has a fairly rich collection (I believe all EMI and Universal material is available DRM-free). If you've bought music from Itunes in the recent past, chances are you obtained a "Plus" version of the track (look for the little + sign next to the track listing) since they cost the same, and Apple has by default gotten rid of all DRM-infected tracks for which clean versions are available. So yeah, DRM-free music exists, it works, it makes money and it keeps customers happy.

Some guy on Slashdot commented that Google games would have to run in a browser, and this was one response:

I'm not trying to challenge his claim, he could be right. I was merely questioning (rhetorically) that if there's no evidence to support either side, then why not pick the pro-consumer alternative? Perhaps unethical is not the right word to use against the general notion of DRM. It's SecuROM in particular that I find absolutely disgusting, especially since there's nothing on the box or in the EULA (except for a vague generalization) that tells you that there's a stealthy piece of software being installed on YOUR machine by the software YOU just purchased that runs as a super-process with full access privileges to the hardware, and which does NOT get removed when you uninstall the game. It's malware plain and simple. Screwing over the very consumers that purchase your product without their knowledge or consent is deplorable. If there were a proper description of how SecuROM takes over your system on the game box, then perhaps I wouldn't be as outraged, I just would steer clear of the product (as would other customers that didn't like the idea). If content providers can come up with a magical DRM implementation that allows me as a customer to use the content freely and within my fair-use rights, while at the same time disallowing any form of illegal distribution, then hey, I'm all for it!

So if it's a stalemate, shouldn't the manufacturer pick the option that's cheaper, ethically correct, and something that Every. Single. Customer would appreciate?

You make a good point. Sigh... no Red Alert 3 for me. Oh well, there's always Starcraft II. Lets hope the suits at Activision-Blizzard don't hate their customers as much as EA does.

Why can't you replay it later on? Th only game I've ever installed more than three times is JA2, and I'd actually have no problem paying for that product 5 times over. Look, I'm not a fan of limiting installs, but pirating is the CAUSE of the situation. Many of you seem to blame the EFFECT of piracy. The point is it's a BAD, anti-customer solution that just doesn't work! Joe Pirate gets to play for free with no restrictions 5 days before the game gets released, and we the paying customers have all sorts of draconian restrictions imposed on us and get virus-like malware installed on our machines without our consent. When legitimate customers end up having to resort to a torrented copy (or a noCD crack) to be able to play in peace while their shiny new game box and CD are sitting on the shelf as a showpiece and proof-of-purchase, you know the so-called solution isn't. How hard is it for the ****ing bean-counters to understand this?!?? It's EXASPERATING. Couldn't edit, so quoting myself... This is why EA is hell-bent on using SecuROM on all their games, not piracy. Piracy is just an excuse (a lame one though, since even a half-witted orc can see it's not working).

Why can't you replay it later on? Th only game I've ever installed more than three times is JA2, and I'd actually have no problem paying for that product 5 times over. Look, I'm not a fan of limiting installs, but pirating is the CAUSE of the situation. Many of you seem to blame the EFFECT of piracy. The point is it's a BAD, anti-customer solution that just doesn't work! Joe Pirate gets to play for free with no restrictions 5 days before the game gets released, and we the paying customers have all sorts of draconian restrictions imposed on us and get virus-like malware installed on our machines without our consent. When legitimate customers end up having to resort to a torrented copy (or a noCD crack) to be able to play in peace while their shiny new game box and CD are sitting on the shelf as a showpiece and proof-of-purchase, you know the so-called solution isn't. How hard is it for the ****ing bean-counters to understand this?!?? It's EXASPERATING.

No, it is not for "free." If I do not like the game I uninstall and delete it. If I do like the game I buy it. Priceless. It wouldn't stand up in court, and it doesn't stand up here. Theft is theft is theft. I know that the rise of the internet and file-sharing has been used by many to try to redefine property rights. However, they've all failed. Intellectual property is as tangible as physical property. You can steal it. OK, catching you might be tougher, but it doesn't change the simple fact that piracy is theft. Cheers MC You cannot equate intellectual property violation to traditional theft. You don't even have to make a legal or moral argument here, it's very very simple logic. Traditional theft has 2 simple, direct effects: (a) the owner of the property loses access to it, and (b) the thief gains access to it. IP violation has one direct effect: the violator gains access to the property. There is no immediate, straightforward impact on the owner. Of course, the owner could argue that they are losing out on a potential "sale of a licence", but said "sale" and the associated "loss" to the owner is a complex function of the market, the terms and conditions of the license, the IP laws in effect, etc. Obviously this stems from the fact that material property and intellectual property are fundamentally different -- IP can be transferred non-destructively. Which is why most societies have completely different sets of laws governing them. Which is exactly why material theft is a criminal offense and IP violation is a civil offense in most legal systems. Trying to apply behaviors, laws and ethics related to material property on intellectual property is ridiculous. Personally, I do not condone either theft or IP violation. I do not buy the "try before you buy" argument either -- it might seem morally sound to some, but a breach of license is a breach of license. And personally, I am also very annoyed that I as a customer have to deal with the excesses of draconian copy-protection systems. However, there's no way I can get myself to categorize an IP violator as a thief; ethically, legally or logically.