Bioware sold out

[kirottu]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/5/9/

[Gromnir]

"Grommy: I don't think I'm brainless."

 

nope, you ain't. but gamers, as a group, seems pretty damned brainless. Gromnir were referencing the mass o' gamers that continues to buy games from developers/publishers on day 1 of release... even if those developers/publishers has a track record of buggy games. and that is only a single example o' gamer stoopidity. gamers don't act likes the reasonably educated individuals that they is 'posed to be. junkies. often the behavior exhibited by gamers towards their game habit is more akin to addiction than it is reasonable consumer behavior.

 

regardless, mk takes a couple Gromnir comments and strings 'em together wrong in a sloppy attempt to make a point. Di reads Gromnir response and gets wrong impression. you ain't brainless, but game developers and publishers know that gamers act pretty much brainless when it comes to purchases of games.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[~Di]

"Grommy: I don't think I'm brainless."

 

nope, you ain't. but gamers, as a group, seems pretty damned brainless. Gromnir were referencing the mass o' gamers that continues to buy games from developers/publishers on day 1 of release... even if those developers/publishers has a track record of buggy games. and that is only a single example o' gamer stoopidity. gamers don't act likes the reasonably educated individuals that they is 'posed to be. junkies. often the behavior exhibited by gamers towards their game habit is more akin to addiction than it is reasonable consumer behavior.

 

regardless, mk takes a couple Gromnir comments and strings 'em together wrong in a sloppy attempt to make a point. Di reads Gromnir response and gets wrong impression. you ain't brainless, but game developers and publishers know that gamers act pretty much brainless when it comes to purchases of games.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Okay, sweetie, understood. I'm really, really unhappy with Bio's decision here. I've told them so on their website... not that my opinion matters. I wish I had preordered it so I could cancel. I don't know what I'll do yet; it will be sometime in June before I decide. This seems a really invasive measure, one I'm reluctant to accept. Yeah, I'm a junkie. I only buy one or two games a year. I've been waiting for so long for another BioWare game... but this seems an exceptional insult to their loyal consumers. I haven't reached a decision yet. I don't want to over-react. I need imput from those who have purchased the game., This is the first time I have held off buying a BioWare game I really wanted because I didn't trust the publishers/developers. Still, I accept that you understand that I am blond, not brainless. Actually, I'm more grey than blonde nowadays. But don't tell anyone.

Edited May 9, 2008 by ~Di

[Tigranes]

Gromnir were referencing the mass o' gamers that continues to buy games from developers/publishers on day 1 of release... even if those developers/publishers has a track record of buggy games.

 

Oh, definitely, but I think it's just slow progress. More and more people are waking up to this sad fact now, and I think in a decade or less, it will become the norm to avoid buying games on Day 1 unless you're really desperate or you really trust that particular company. I bought MOTB before it even came out in NZ, with a US friend's help, but I was aware of Obsidian's admittedly patchy track record with bugs, because I'm one of those people that are hardly bothered by many bugs if the game is good. I mean, hell, I played NWN2 OC at 5fps (not bugs or anything, my PC is just crap, it couldn't handle K2 either), and I enjoyed it. Hah!

[Nick_i_am]

Actually, i'm suprised it took this long for someone to impliment anti-piracy measures like this.

[skuld1]

I'd bet that Bioware would remove the authentication via patch within 2-3 years (by then, lost sales to piracy would be negligible and probably not worth maintaining the auth server). Also, I highly doubt that EA is going out of business in 3 years.

 

Now a few light-hearted questions to some folks in the thread

 

Do you get furiously angry when you go to buy alcohol and the cashier or store owner asks you for ID? Or how about when you are randomly selected for a thorough search at an airport? Angered that, when voting, the poll workers ask you for your voting ID/voter registration/do a signature check/etc. ?

 

When any of the above happen, do you take it as an affront to your integrity?

 

Some posts in this thread suggest that MEPC phones home, they are suggesting that you (a legitimate purchaser) are a pirate. When the poll worker makes his or her checks, are they suggesting that you are attempting to commit voter fraud?

[Nick_i_am]

The comebacks to that are both obvious and inevitable.

 

But yes, hardcore PC gamer enthusiasts are, in general, angry at the world.

[Gorth]

Do you get furiously angry when you go to buy alcohol and the cashier or store owner asks you for ID?

Very unlikely to happen, my grey hair is a dead give away

 

Or how about when you are randomly selected for a thorough search at an airport?

Yes.

 

Angered that, when voting, the poll workers ask you for your voting ID/voter registration/do a signature check/etc. ?

I don't vote (I don't have citizenship).

 

When any of the above happen, do you take it as an affront to your integrity?

In the case of the airport, yes. I accept it as a price to pay if I insist on flying. I need to fly as part of my job, I can live happily ever after without a video game. A slight difference. Here I can exercise my free will and chose not to subject myself to it

[kirottu]

Do you get furiously angry when you go to buy alcohol and the cashier or store owner asks you for ID? Or how about when you are randomly selected for a thorough search at an airport? Angered that, when voting, the poll workers ask you for your voting ID/voter registration/do a signature check/etc. ?

 

When any of the above happen, do you take it as an affront to your integrity?

 

I don

[Tigranes]

Interestingly, skuld, those were the exact same examples that were debunked a few pages back. I won't go through it in detail, but suffice to point out that your examples would actually be parallel to a one time CD Key check, which nobody has a problem with. Now, what are you going to do if they decide every 10 minutes in a bar, pub or night-club you h ave to present your darn ID?

[kirottu]

On a side note, the second DRM thread at Bioboards has reached over 100 pages... Still, I get the feeling Bioware isn

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Do you get furiously angry when you go to buy alcohol and the cashier or store owner asks you for ID? Or how about when you are randomly selected for a thorough search at an airport? Angered that, when voting, the poll workers ask you for your voting ID/voter registration/do a signature check/etc. ?

 

Those are equivalent to the CD-key check when installing a game or playing it for the first time. What we are talking about is if you had to present an identification or submit to a search every fifteen minutes.

[thepixiesrock]

I'd bet that Bioware would remove the authentication via patch within 2-3 years (by then, lost sales to piracy would be negligible and probably not worth maintaining the auth server). Also, I highly doubt that EA is going out of business in 3 years.

 

Now a few light-hearted questions to some folks in the thread

 

Do you get furiously angry when you go to buy alcohol and the cashier or store owner asks you for ID? Or how about when you are randomly selected for a thorough search at an airport? Angered that, when voting, the poll workers ask you for your voting ID/voter registration/do a signature check/etc. ?

 

When any of the above happen, do you take it as an affront to your integrity?

 

Some posts in this thread suggest that MEPC phones home, they are suggesting that you (a legitimate purchaser) are a pirate. When the poll worker makes his or her checks, are they suggesting that you are attempting to commit voter fraud?

 

I think what you are suggesting is much more simmilar to a CD key than anything.

[Humodour]

CD-keys are an acceptable balance between security and invasiveness. This isn't a 'war' publishers can win. It's all about cutting your losses and then focusing on keeping happy those who really do buy your games, so they'll continue to in future; they're the ones you want to market to.

[skuld1]

This isn't a 'war' publishers can win.

 

Why not? If winning is eliminating ALL piracy, yeah, they cannot win, but I think they'd be satisfied with cutting down on 'casual' piracy.

 

Interestingly, skuld, those were the exact same examples that were debunked a few pages back. I won't go through it in detail, but suffice to point out that your examples would actually be parallel to a one time CD Key check, which nobody has a problem with.

 

Yes, no one has a problem with CD key checks, especially the pirates. Download an .nfo file for any pirate release and it handily contains a CD-key for the downloaders to use. I'm not at all shocked that companies are trying new techniques and at the moment I don't have anything against this new DRM (I don't believe that every worst case scenario outlined in the thread is going to happen...)

 

What I was trying to get at with my examples is that all sorts of activities require you to 'authenticate'. There are plenty of folks on the net (like kirottu in this thread) who equate software DRM to treating customers like criminals. I was curious if kirottu et al. were equally outraged when asked for identification when voting or purchasing liquor. In the same way that I think that poll workers aren't accusing me of being a criminal when they ask for my credentials, I don't feel that game companies are calling me a criminal with DRM, but that's just me.

Edited May 9, 2008 by skuld1

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Asking you once is reasonable, if sometimes annoying, but pestering you every few minutes will get old very fast. Add the restrictions on the number of PCs you can install the software on, and yo have yourself an extremely uninviting game.

[Slowtrain]

What I was trying to get at with my examples is that all sorts of activities require you to 'authenticate'. There are plenty of folks on the net (like kirottu in this thread) who equate software DRM to treating customers like criminals. I was curious if kirottu et al. were equally outraged when asked for identification when voting or purchasing liquor. In the same way that I think that poll workers aren't accusing me of being a criminal when they ask for my credentials, I don't feel that game companies are calling me a criminal with DRM, but that's just me.

 

 

To me, invasion of privacy in the interests of safety and/or security is not a black and white issue: it is not always OK and is not always not okay. Each scenario requires a weighing of risks vs degree of invasion. What is acceptable under one scenario is not necessaerily acceptable under another scenario. Equating spot checks at airports to DRM in a computer games is not valid because what is at risk is so totally different. I don't consider random spot checks at airport to be "bad" although they certainly are annoying. However, if new laws were passed requiring every single passengger to be subject to a full strip and body cavity search, I would have a real problem there since the degree of invasion would suddenly outstrip the risk. To me, personally, ME's DRM is close to tipping pver the line where the degree of invasion becomes unreasonable. I'm not going to pirate the game in response, I just simply won't buy it. Not worth it.

 

 

There is another issue as well, though stil peripheral at this point. Invasion of privacy often reults in people/companies/organizations having access to private information about others. In some cases such is neccessary, but there still needs to be regulation and oversight of those who hold such information. AS fasr as I can tell, no one outside of the drm companies know xactly what is installed on your computer and what information is transmitted during this drm process. Derek French certainly doesn't know. He was asked the question directly several times and never answered. His only response was: its a wrapper for the exe. That's not really much of a response. And who is reponsible for overseeing all this private information? WHo does Sony report to? At this point it is probably all pretty innocent, but that doesn't mean it will always be the case.

 

 

I am not trying to convince you that it should bother you. Do as you will and feel as you will. But the concerns are very much legitamate to anybody who believes that privacy and the right to have a private existence is important even if not always possible due to the limitations of the society we live in. Not everybody does believe that. I do.

[kirottu]

What I was trying to get at with my examples is that all sorts of activities require you to 'authenticate'. There are plenty of folks on the net (like kirottu in this thread) who equate software DRM to treating customers like criminals. I was curious if kirottu et al. were equally outraged when asked for identification when voting or purchasing liquor. In the same way that I think that poll workers aren't accusing me of being a criminal when they ask for my credentials, I don't feel that game companies are calling me a criminal with DRM, but that's just me.

 

Asking once is okay. Asking every 10 days for all eternity isn

Edited May 9, 2008 by kirottu

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It is bull**** and nothing else.

 

[skuld1]

AS fasr as I can tell, no one outside of the drm companies know xactly what is installed on your computer and what information is transmitted during this drm process. Derek French certainly doesn't know. He was asked the question directly several times and never answered. His only response was: its a wrapper for the exe. That's not really much of a response. And who is reponsible for overseeing all this private information? WHo does Sony report to? At this point it is probably all pretty innocent, but that doesn't mean it will always be the case.

 

I definitely agree with this. I know the DRM folks won't reveal the exact workings of their system (that would just basically tell the pirates how to defeat it) but they need to be as open as possible regarding what gets transmitted, etc.

 

What then when this new SecuROM protection is cracked(like it will be)? Constant internet connection? Sending your picture? ID? Only one activation? Those might sound ridiculous, but my point is that this is step to the wrong direction and who knows what happen next when higher-ups realise it isn

Edited May 9, 2008 by skuld1

[Moatilliatta]

Very relevant.

 

The newspost as well.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Jediphile]

This isn't a 'war' publishers can win.

 

Why not? If winning is eliminating ALL piracy, yeah, they cannot win, but I think they'd be satisfied with cutting down on 'casual' piracy.

 

Except it won't. The pirates will simply remove the code in question, meaning that the pirates will keep playing, while some potential customers, like myself, feel that Bioware is meeting us with suspicion and screwing us over by treating us like criminals. Hence we won't buy the game. Net effect: Piracy is unchanged, while Mass Effect pc sales suffer.

 

What I was trying to get at with my examples is that all sorts of activities require you to 'authenticate'. There are plenty of folks on the net (like kirottu in this thread) who equate software DRM to treating customers like criminals. I was curious if kirottu et al. were equally outraged when asked for identification when voting or purchasing liquor. In the same way that I think that poll workers aren't accusing me of being a criminal when they ask for my credentials, I don't feel that game companies are calling me a criminal with DRM, but that's just me.

 

The problem is that as a customer, I'm being met with suspicion. I have to prove that I'm not a pirate, and I have to repeat doing so consistantly. And there is, of course, a notable difference between the examples you cite and what Bioware wants to do in that all your examples take place in public. Gaming, however, takes place in your private home.

 

Now, obviously people will argue that it's only people who have something to hide who argue against this sort of thing. It's essentially the "Bush doctrine" of "you're either with us or with the evildoers", who are pirates in this case. Then the rationale comes that if you dislike this sort of thing, then it's because you know you're doing something that's wrong. Just the same argument as used against people, when they argue against surveillance by cameras and what not, which doesn't work anyway btw - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

 

I saw a guy give the perfect response to that once, however. Someone said to him that he only resisted being surveilled, because he knew he was doing somthing wrong. The guy responded by asking the person who questioned him, if he had curtains in his bedroom. When the other guy had to reply that he did, he asked if there was something he was hiding and didn't want to find out about. It's the perfect way to put it. It's as if the idea of privacy is being slowly undermined these years, as if we're no longer allowed to have a sense of privacy. Everybody is suddenly to be allowed to have access to EVERYTHING about us. The government needs to know that we're not planning terrorist acts or whatever. The gaming companies need to know we don't pirate their games. RIAA and MPAA need to know that we don't download music or movies, etc. It just goes on and on. It's sickening. And when you resist, you're stigmatised because you dare to defend your right to privacy and question the right of the government and the companies to bulldozer all over your rights.

 

Well, I'd have liked the opportunity try Mass Effect on my pc, but I won't be, since I absolutely refuse to pay for a product that spies on me and installs spyware on my system!!

Edited May 9, 2008 by Jediphile

[Blarghagh]

Is it me, or does it seem like you can easily crack this? I mean, I can't, but real computer-savvy people can crack it easily. I suppose it would come down to something like changing the .exe file to always say the check already happened (most cracks involve a overwriting the .exe anyway) or creating a file that simulates the check.

 

It doesn't look like this can really stop piracy. In fact, judging by reactions, people will now be MORE likely to pirate it. We all know that a crack will appear within ten minutes after release anyway, and they're really doing their best to alienate gamers (their core audience).

 

The problem is that as a customer, I'm being met with suspicion.

 

This is something I completely agree with. It makes me think of going to a fancy restaurant, ordering your food and getting met with the response "you better pay for that, sneak". Good a reason as any to walk out (or at least not give a tip).

Edited May 9, 2008 by TrueNeutral

[Slowtrain]

[i saw a guy give the perfect response to that once, however. Someone said to him that he only resisted being surveilled, because he knew he was doing somthing wrong. The guy responded by asking the person who questioned him, if he had curtains in his bedroom. When the other guy had to reply that he did, he asked if there was something he was hiding and didn't want to find out about. It's the perfect way to put it. It's as if the idea of privacy is being slowly undermined these years, as if we're no longer allowed to have a sense of privacy. Everybody is suddenly to be allowed to have access to EVERYTHING about us. The government needs to know that we're not planning terrorist acts or whatever. The gaming companies need to know we don't pirate their games. RIAA and MPAA need to know that we don't download music or movies, etc. It just goes on and on. It's sickening. And when you resist, you're stigmatised because you dare to defend your right to privacy and question the right of the government and the companies to bulldozer all over your rights.

 

And it always has to be discussed in context. Putting cameras in a bank to watch me while I bank is OK with me. Or at least I understand why that might be done and that given our society I have to tolerate it. If somebody wants to put that exact same camera in my bathroom to watch me poop, I'm going to have a different reaction.

[aries101]

I might have considered buying it, but knowing the level of authentication Bioware will put me through and the level of distrust and suspicion that naturally comes with it, I'm very unlikely to buy and play it now.

 

Exactly. I would rather wait and spend my money on something, the Sins of the Solar Empire expansion or, hopefully, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky for example, that will not have the headache that is overused, unwarranted copy protection. If the game is available on Steam without the hassle, maybe - but unless I can get a legal copy without the bull**** I'm unlikely to buy, and play, the game. I mean, I find CD/DVD-checks annoying and wish that more companies would put out no-cd patches once their games reach a certain age - too think that I would willingly buy into this god awful, half arsed system when there are other, less annoying, games on the market -that are equally good- is ludicrous.

 

Most people don't play 15 year old games. Heck, most people couldn't figure out how to run a game older than 5 on a new OS. It's a small minority that reaches that far back for their entertainment.

 

Blasphemy!

 

I think I have to agree with Hurlshot that most people don't play 10 or even 15 year old games. I have finally accepted and mourned a litlle over that I won't ever be able to play games like Ultima IV, or Wizardy 5, or The Gold Box games - ever. I have discovered that I simply don't have the time or patiente to get these games to load in Dosbox so that I can play them. Some times I will fire up Fallout 1+2 though. Or some older adventure games. But that's it.

 

As for Bioware selling out, EA is the publisher and EA has decided what copy protection Mass Effect for PC will use.