EA Sticking With SecuROM

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

If I were gaming on the PC, I'd buy the game, then crack it to remove the DRM.

 

But I'd never get cracked entirely. Too scared of getting a virus or something worse.

[Moatilliatta]

Since most cracks, to my knowledge at least, are just .exe files meant to replace the original one wouldn't cracks be an equal source of viruses?

[random n00b]

If I were gaming on the PC, I'd buy the game, then crack it to remove the DRM.

That's probably the most useless (in a practical sense) thing you could do since you are both supporting the industry and thus encouraging them to continue using that sort of DRM, and at the same time, supporting piracy, albeit indirectly.

 

It's the reason I didn't buy MEPC.

[Tigranes]

Yep. In the short term it's the most moral and practical thing to do for you (not stealin', not getting screwed by DRM) but it sends all the wrong messages.

 

Pity. I'm sorta enjoying Spore, but once I return my friend's copy I won't be playing it again, and I never did get to try most of ME. But I care about the industry more than I do a couple of decent games.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But I care about the industry more than I do a couple of decent games.

 

[neckthrough]

Yep. In the short term it's the most moral and practical thing to do for you (not stealin', not getting screwed by DRM) but it sends all the wrong messages.

 

Pity. I'm sorta enjoying Spore, but once I return my friend's copy I won't be playing it again, and I never did get to try most of ME. But I care about the industry more than I do a couple of decent games.

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.

[mrmud]

Since most cracks, to my knowledge at least, are just .exe files meant to replace the original one wouldn't cracks be an equal source of viruses?

Trojans in cracks happen but it is pretty rare.

Usually it is the big release groups who put out the cracks and they dont want to loose their reputation by having a crack containing a trojan or virus.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Yep. In the short term it's the most moral and practical thing to do for you (not stealin', not getting screwed by DRM) but it sends all the wrong messages.

 

Pity. I'm sorta enjoying Spore, but once I return my friend's copy I won't be playing it again, and I never did get to try most of ME. But I care about the industry more than I do a couple of decent games.

 

Of course it does.

 

But the alternatives aren't any fun.

[Tigranes]

I'm playing my umpteenth installation of BGII with lots of fanmade mods.

 

Five minutes of this is a lot more fun than my entire stint with Mass Effect.

 

Of course there will come a time when the alternative to accepting install-limit DRM or [insert some currently draconian thing here] will basically mean a refusal to play most games, but hey, I'm sure as hell going to do my part to make sure that doesn't happen.

[random n00b]

I'm playing my umpteenth installation of BGII with lots of fanmade mods.

 

Five minutes of this is a lot more fun than my entire stint with Mass Effect.

And cheaper, too. Unfortunately, not many old games have the sort of loyal following that make possible the volume of activity in that game's modding community. I don't think I would have played BG2 as much as I have if it wasn't for the mods.

 

 

Of course there will come a time when the alternative to accepting install-limit DRM or [insert some currently draconian thing here] will basically mean a refusal to play most games, but hey, I'm sure as hell going to do my part to make sure that doesn't happen.

That's a pretty bleak outlook you have. And while the fad seems to be hitting some high profile releases hard, the practice isn't too widespread. I am inclined to think that in time, they will be unable to justify the investment in DRM suites like that, and will instead shift to trying to encourage purchase instead of discouraging piracy. Edited September 13, 2008 by random n00b

[Tigranes]

Oops, uh, that's a "there may come a time", not will. It was more of a general statement - maybe we can't stop something that we dislike from becoming standard practice, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop opposing it. Just doesn't do anybody good (except, uh, I guess I'd get to play Mass Effect?)

[Bokishi]

I heard you can call in order to get more installs, kinda makes it like Windows activation, so it's not too bad

[random n00b]

And I've heard (read here even, possibly?) that EA customer support is dismal. Their "case by case" approach to the issue essentially means that unless you can get a hold of a supervisor somehow, you are basically wasting your time. To be fair, I don't like badmouthing companies based on hearsay, but even in the BIO forums I've seen people complain about the SecuROM suite preventing them from playing their legitimately acquired games. That's very bad publicity, even if it's only anecdotal.

 

It's a shame really, I was really looking forward to MEPC, and will immediately shell out the cash if/when they remove this thing.

[Hell Kitty]

I bought Alone in the Dark online from the Atari store, and it required a one time activation on install, and when uninstalling allows you to revoke the license*. No need to worry about limited installs or calling home every time you load the game.

 

 

*Not that I'd ever replay this bugfest.

[Tigranes]

I heard you can call in order to get more installs, kinda makes it like Windows activation, so it's not too bad

 

You want me to deal with EA Customer Service?

 

Man, that's cruel. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[aries101]

Allow me, if you will to broaden the discussion a bit.

 

Ascararon made this announcement for drm in Sacred 2.

[The link takes to you to post by rpghwatch]

 

The most important difference from Mass Effect is that you get a revoke tool and that activations can be de-activated.

 

There are some other differences which you can read by yourself.

 

To me, this is much more lenient system than EA's - especially since it seems to look for the customer's rights, too - not just the publisher's or the developer's.

Edited September 13, 2008 by aries101

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Well, that's a step in the right direction although it's still a little strict for my tastes.

[Dark_Raven]

I heard you can call in order to get more installs, kinda makes it like Windows activation, so it's not too bad

Of course its still bad. I should be able to install my game as many times as I wish. I don't want to call any of those ****, customer service sucks.

[darththutch]

The problem with secure whatever and license keys, activation items so many installs then we screw you over, is this. Most support organizations are ill-equped and ill-prepared to handle the issues. Especially if these security measures fail. Look if game companies want to go the way of Computer Asscioates more power to them. CA did all this anti-piracy stuff and ended up having products that failed to even operate due to the secuirty measures.

 

And if a video game is that much work to me I will simply return it or request an RMA from the manufacturer or get rid of it entirely. Plus considering how much video games costs to me, its hardly the hassle of messing with their security codes in a proper use scenario or not.

Some of what I mean is if the install fails for me once, its history.

 

The other point to consider to is this, how well is are these security measure going to withstand time. I have games that are probably nearing 15 years old. Most of the companies that wrote them are no longer. So if EA has issue with it, so long EA games. Not to mention I expect the install work just as well as the day I bought it.

[random n00b]

Allow me, if you will to broaden the discussion a bit.

 

Ascararon made this announcement for drm in Sacred 2.

[The link takes to you to post by rpghwatch]

 

The most important difference from Mass Effect is that you get a revoke tool and that activations can be de-activated.

 

There are some other differences which you can read by yourself.

 

To me, this is much more lenient system than EA's - especially since it seems to look for the customer's rights, too - not just the publisher's or the developer's.

That's still total bollocks. I purchase games to play games, not to wrestle with their DRM - especially when pirates (and yes, this game WILL be pirated) have it much easier. More and more games are shipping with skimpy manuals or no manuals at all, but with this kind of official malware, they'll have to start printing leaflets on how to operate the DRM properly. This is just another iteration of the absurd idea that legit users should go through all the hoops the dev/publisher wants them to, while illegit users aren't affected whatsoever and all under the pretense that these measures are undertaken to leave illegit users out. Brilliant, indeed.

 

Haha, good luck with that, especially in the face of Diablo 3.

[Azure79]

I don't see how any publisher could think Securom or DRM does any lick of good.

 

1: The whole point of this is to curb pirating.

 

2: In the case of Spore it was cracked and pirated a week before the game was officially released.

 

3: Most games are cracked and available for DL without DRM.

 

4: What was the point of spending money on #1 again?

 

5: Meanwhile some gamers who bought the game experience technical difficulties because of DRM.

 

6: In the age of the internet, this information spreads fast, even if the percentage of people experiencing problems is small.

 

7: People who would have otherwise bought the game now think twice.

 

Who is deciding these policies up in EA? It doesn't work. Someone should slap a suit down in front of the computer and actually have them try to find and download a game off the net, instead of feeding them reports based on data that frankly is difficult to measure.

 

Of course we might be overestimating the intelligence of some of the suits so everything they need to illegally download is already installed and running.

 

Maybe then they would realize the futility and try to improve the game or come up with another system that doesn't punish the legitimate consumer.

[alanschu]

As an aside, I know that EA's DRM has worked in a way, because I know people that have bought the game because their friends and whatnot will not lend them the game and waste one of the activations.

[Hell Kitty]

I'm sure that the people who refuse to buy a game because of it's DRM like to think the stand they are taking is a meaningful one, but is there really any way to know that this is true? I mean if all the recent PC games that have required activation were replaced with versions without DRM, would sales suddenly increase a meaningful amount?

 

It just seems like gamers claiming that DRM has a huge effect on PC game sales isn't much different to publishers claiming that piracy has a huge effect on PC game sales, in that neither side can really prove such claims.

[alanschu]

Astute observation from the demonic feline.

[kirottu]

I'm sure that the people who refuse to buy a game because of it's DRM like to think the stand they are taking is a meaningful one, but is there really any way to know that this is true? I mean if all the recent PC games that have required activation were replaced with versions without DRM, would sales suddenly increase a meaningful amount?

 

It just seems like gamers claiming that DRM has a huge effect on PC game sales isn't much different to publishers claiming that piracy has a huge effect on PC game sales, in that neither side can really prove such claims.

 

Party pooper.