EA Sticking With SecuROM

[Moatilliatta]

There have been many different stories about EAs support but most of them in my experience has been positive.

 

The biggest problem seem to be that it's a pay line that you're calling.

[Walsingham]

You have to pay them to get tech support? Or do you just mean it's not toll free?

[Deraldin]

You have to pay them to get tech support? Or do you just mean it's not toll free?

 

I recall hearing that at least in some areas it's a "pay us" line. Something about $2.50 a minute for those in Australia.

[Killian Kalthorne]

You mean like when I re-install Windows? Because case-by-case means I give them the old code, they give me a new one, and the story ends right there. I really think people are making mountains out of mole hills here.

 

They can also deny you a new code if you do not prove to them that you actually own the game. Also its not a toll free number. Its long distance for everyone except those who live in the call center's local area. They like to put you on hold as well.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Hurlshort]

You mean like when I re-install Windows? Because case-by-case means I give them the old code, they give me a new one, and the story ends right there. I really think people are making mountains out of mole hills here.

 

They can also deny you a new code if you do not prove to them that you actually own the game. Also its not a toll free number. Its long distance for everyone except those who live in the call center's local area. They like to put you on hold as well.

 

I assume you prove you own the game by giving the key, so I don't know why that would be an issue. I've dealt with a lot of customer support folks and I've never had an issue where they "don't believe me". Customer support people aren't trained to be detectives.

 

Not having a toll free number does seem to be a problem, I'm surprised a huge company like EA would have that issue. That sounds like something the customers might actually be able to fight to change, rather than this fruitless attempt at wrestling with DRM. I'd sign a petition for an EA Customer Support toll free number.

[random n00b]

Companies can control access by actively spoofing pirated copies, and bringing lawsuits against repeat offenders.

Um, no, they can't. Blocking the game from connecting to the Internet is as simple as Zonealarm. And they can't bring any lawsuits against you if it's not illegal in your jurisdiction to download games (and, in many jurisdictions outside the US, it's not). Not only that, but the little fish are just too many and too insignificant to go after.

 

 

Also not everyone has the internet connection to download 4-6 gb disk images that often. Obviously these things have an effect on availability or they wouldn't do it. It's not a free for all, especially if you live on campus, or at your parent's, and could get in serious trouble as a result of one of those warning letters.

Not having broadband has nothing to do with this, as in any case, you wouldn't be able to download it, regardless of anti-copy. If the best argument you can think of for companies still using DRM is "well, they must have a reason, they can't be THAT stupid, right?", then I'll simply refer you to the reason behind it. As one of the fundamental characteristics of the universe, it's not something to be taken lightly.

 

As I said, only those with active consciences pay for games.

 

And, as for SecuROM not being "all that draconian", I guess I just have a very low tolerance for bull****.

[Humodour]

I'll be honest, when I was in High School I gave little thought to pirating. We had FTP sites and with my 2400 baud modem I downloaded a few things. I regret it now, I look back and realize how young and dumb I was. I'm just hoping that the message of the clearly older folks on this forum is getting across to the younger ones. It is wrong and it damages the very industry that you enjoy.

 

That's usually spacious logic. Generally the people who pirate the game would not have bought it anyway. On the otherhand, the free marketing it generates is never considered into the equation. Also, it assumes that game developers are struggling. Really? Sales have only ever increased over time.

 

Anyway, the money mostly goes to publishers, not game studios.

 

Selling games isn't broken. Piracy isn't killing it (it never was). Excessive DRM however, is damaging its reputation. Sounds like you've fallen for the typical "piracy is evil" line my friend.

 

Me? I support disruptive tech. I think open source software, iTunes, and Steam are beautiful examples of why the old model is flawed and doesn't need protecting. The law doesn't exist to prop up failing business models, so the RIAA and cohorts really can go eff themselves.

 

I do buy good games. Whether I buy them before or after I play them is irrelevant. With companies like Obsidian it is easy to buy without playing first because I know they are good quality. But things like Oblivion or Fallout 3 - no way will I buy those without playing a copy first to figure out whether or not they are trash; I do not want to support bad developers, and I don't believe I should be expected to for their income, sorry.

 

The RIAA recently shut down Pandora. It's funny, because Pandora actually introduced me to new bands which I subsequently went out and bought. No longer.

 

"Electronic copyright infringement is something that can only become an 'economic epidemic' under certain conditions. Any one of the following: 1) The products they want... are hard to find, and thus valuable. 2) The products they want are high-priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them. 3) The legal products come with so many added-on nuisances that the illegal version is better to begin with. Those are the three conditions that will create widespread electronic copyright infringement, especially in combination. Why? Because they're the same three general conditions that create all large-scale smuggling enterprises. And... Guess what? It's precisely those three conditions that DRM creates in the first place. So far from being an impediment to so-called 'online piracy,' it's DRM itself that keeps fueling it and driving it forward."

 

There will always be piracy. You can accept this, try to minimise it a bit, and focus on providing a quality experience for your legitimate customers to justify them paying for it... or you can see that 20% that pirates (and will always exist) and think through logical fallacy "that's 25% less money I'm getting!" and treat your average customer like a criminal. I think I know which one is going to make you more money.

 

Don't agree with me? Read a game developer's thoughts on it: http://www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html

Edited September 17, 2008 by Krezack

[Gorgon]

Companies can control access by actively spoofing pirated copies, and bringing lawsuits against repeat offenders.

Um, no, they can't. Blocking the game from connecting to the Internet is as simple as Zonealarm. And they can't bring any lawsuits against you if it's not illegal in your jurisdiction to download games (and, in many jurisdictions outside the US, it's not). Not only that, but the little fish are just too many and too insignificant to go after.

 

 

Also not everyone has the internet connection to download 4-6 gb disk images that often. Obviously these things have an effect on availability or they wouldn't do it. It's not a free for all, especially if you live on campus, or at your parent's, and could get in serious trouble as a result of one of those warning letters.

Not having broadband has nothing to do with this, as in any case, you wouldn't be able to download it, regardless of anti-copy. If the best argument you can think of for companies still using DRM is "well, they must have a reason, they can't be THAT stupid, right?", then I'll simply refer you to the reason behind it. As one of the fundamental characteristics of the universe, it's not something to be taken lightly.

 

As I said, only those with active consciences pay for games.

 

And, as for SecuROM not being "all that draconian", I guess I just have a very low tolerance for bull****.

Spoofing means creating false pirate downloads as well as posting messages that such and such torrent file, crack, application doesn't work, on the major file sharing networks. It is usually not very effective. It's got nothing to do with a game connecting to the internet. Anyway, taken together, fear of lawsuits, spoofs, and the sheer size of dvd disk images all have an effect on the availability of pirated games. If you can't download a game you would have to order one instead. You get me.

 

It's not a battle the companies are winning mind you, but if they gave up control completely they would lose more money. It's not like there is an alternative to trying to protect their work anyway, so inertia in relation to what.

 

The music industry is starting to make money off downloads because they finally understood that impulse buys have to be easy, and the price has to be good. Of course any kind of pay per download scheme would be impossible without DRM.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Gorgon

[Humodour]

The music industry is starting to make money off downloads because they finally understood that impulse buys have to be easy, and the price has to be good. Of course any kind of pay per download scheme would be impossible without DRM.

 

Um, what? Pay per download schemes work just fine without DRM. Where the hell did you come up with that? Plenty of artists have sold their content over iTunes without DRM. Radiohead and Trent Reznor come to mind. What, do you think people will pirate it if there's no DRM? Funny, because they pirate it easily enough when there is. The people buying online aren't doing it because it's hard to get illegally, they're doing it because it's easy and cheap through iTunes/whatever. DRM has got nothing to do with the success of online stores.

 

Anyway, it's not just impulse buy - for many people it's just easier to grab something digitally rather than walking to the store, silly as that sounds.

 

The fatal flaw in the anti file sharing arguments is the assumption that people pirate because they are greedy. More often than not, it's because the price is too high to impulse buy, and file sharing provides a more readily available format (both in terms of being available from home, and already in digital format). The other fatal flaw is the assumption that if you stop piracy, your sales will go up. No, the majority of those people still won't buy your stuff, and you've now also neutered a free and important source of grassroots advertisement and publicity (word of mouth).

 

Pirating software: Just use open source. The days when proprietary software was superior are coming to an end. I'm on Ubuntu write now typing up an essay in Open Office as I browse in Firefox and talk to mates on MSN through Pidgin. It's funny how this software was all created for free distribution. Is piracy killing software development?

 

Pirating music: While I'm loathe to pay most publishers a cent these days, it's worth it to support the bands that put in the hard work. I encourage the use of online stores such as iTunes. They are a successful, sustainable and easy to use business model that doesn't rely on lawsuits and intimidation. Lots of stuff on there is DRM-free these days, too.

 

Pirating games: It's a null issue. At the very least, Steam is a very successful business strategy. If the gaming industry really is hurting maybe they should use a better publishing method like Steam instead of blaming piracy and choking their stuff with DRM. Again, Steam's success is a matter of impulse buying and easy access. Worst case scenario? Things migrate to consoles. That's happening a bit, but on the other hand Steam shows that PC gaming is as healthy as it ever has been.

 

This really is a case of letting the market sort it out. Governments and courts shouldn't decide which businesses succeed and which fail. Of course RIAA isn't going to like it - electronic distribution cuts out the middle-man (them). Does that mean we should change the law to protect their potentially failing business model?

[Nick_i_am]

Don't agree with me? Read a game developer's thoughts on it: http://www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html

 

Nice read.

[Gorgon]

You mean to say that the vast majority of purchases through I tunes don't have some kind of 'per device' protection.

[random n00b]

Spoofing means creating false pirate downloads as well as posting messages that such and such torrent file, crack, application doesn't work, on the major file sharing networks. It is usually not very effective. It's got nothing to do with a game connecting to the internet. Anyway, taken together, fear of lawsuits, spoofs, and the sheer size of dvd disk images all have an effect on the availability of pirated games. If you can't download a game you would have to order one instead. You get me.

No, not really. Fear of lawsuits isn't a factor at all, as far as I know, because of what I said before. Spoofing is a non-issue because there are reliable cracks sites that don't allow commenting and only post verified patches. Image size is the only valid argument, but it has no relation whatsoever to DRM.

 

 

It's not a battle the companies are winning mind you, but if they gave up control completely they would lose more money. It's not like there is an alternative to trying to protect their work anyway, so inertia in relation to what.

Counterexample: Steam. There IS an alternative. Laziness, lack of business creativity and most importantly, inertia with regards to established practices prevent any other alternatives from being explored. Edited September 17, 2008 by random n00b

[Gorgon]

Steam is DRM surely, what else would you call it.

[random n00b]

A different distribution model that is far less annoying that SecuROM, and infinitely more effective at preventing piracy?

 

If you don't accept it as a counterexample, I have another: Stardock.

[Gorgon]

I like Stardock's approach, but I wonder if that works with games that don't have a heavy multiplayer element. It works much like an MMO, the real protection is in the online account and online key, which are different from the install keys.

 

I take DRM to mean digital rights management in a broad sense, when steam loads a bunch of drivers, and verifies online before you can even begin to play that might even be considered to be in the draconian end of the scale.

 

Image size is the only valid argument, but it has no relation whatsoever to DRM.

I didn't say it did

 

Either way, selling something that is crippled, or doesn't even work 'out of the box' is a piss poor idea.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Gorgon

[Humodour]

You mean to say that the vast majority of purchases through I tunes don't have some kind of 'per device' protection.

 

I hardly see how this is relevant. Are you trying to say that because many songs on iTunes carry some paranoid industry standard, that's evidence that iTunes would fail without it? Similar for Steam.

 

I wonder what Steve Jobs has to say about DRM and iTunes?

 

The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made [is capable of playing] this DRM-free music.

 

Summary:

• DRM has never and will never be perfect. Hackers will always find a method to break DRM.
  
• DRM restrictions only hurt people using music legally. Illegal users aren't affected by DRM.
  
• The restrictions of DRM encourage users to obtain unrestricted music which is usually only possible via illegal methods.
  
• The vast majority of music is sold without DRM via CDs which has proven successful.
  

[Gorgon]

Without DRM wouldn't the music industry just be saving people the trouble of ripping their CDs. I think you are being a mite too idealistic here. The protections they have now don't amount to much, this is true, but even if it's all smoke and mirrors it still beats begging people to pay you.

 

On one hand you could reach a much larger audience, and on the other you might end up selling just one copy and have that dispersed through the file sharing networks. There have been idealistic attempts, but large scale complete removal of DRM, never going to happen.

[Humodour]

Without DRM wouldn't the music industry just be saving people the trouble of ripping their CDs. I think you are being a mite too idealistic here. The protections they have now don't amount to much, this is true, but even if it's all smoke and mirrors it still beats begging people to pay you.

 

On one hand you could reach a much larger audience, and on the other you might end up selling just one copy and have that dispersed through the file sharing networks. There have been idealistic attempts, but large scale complete removal of DRM, never going to happen.

 

Well I guess I'm as idealistic as the guy who runs Apple and iTunes, then. I mean, nevermind that 90% of music is sold without DRM via CDs or anything...

Edited September 17, 2008 by Krezack

[Humodour]

What's that Amazon? You sell all your mp3's online without any DRM?

 

My my, isn't that something.

[neckthrough]

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.

[Gorgon]

Well how about that. I never actually tried it, but that's because I like rooting through shelves in stores. That way I get exposed to stuff I wouldn't otherwise.

[Humodour]

Well how about that. I never actually tried it, but that's because I like rooting through shelves in stores. That way I get exposed to stuff I wouldn't otherwise.

 

That's why Pandora was so great. It introduced me to all sorts of new bands of similar style and genre. I actually started buying new albums again when I listened to Pandora.

 

And then the music industry went and sued them out of existence.

 

Honestly the entertainment industry is its own worst enemy. As much as people like Hurlshot try to paint them as the victim, I just don't feel it. On that note, I suggest people use of this before purchasing music in future: http://www.riaaradar.com/

 

You'd be surprised how many artists don't fall under the thumb of the RIAA.

[Hurlshort]

Does anyone take issue with the DRM used by the MP3 stores that offer unlimited music for a flat monthly fee? Or is that not considered DRM? I haven't bought a CD for myself in over two years.

 

 

Krezack, it really sounds like you are trying hard to justify piracy. All your arguments fail to convince me that it isn't theft.

[Gorgon]

Hey while you are here Hurlshot, what was the name of that games subscription site with a limited free content. I had to do a reinstall after my older comp bit the dust.

[Hurlshort]

Well how about that. I never actually tried it, but that's because I like rooting through shelves in stores. That way I get exposed to stuff I wouldn't otherwise.

 

That's why Pandora was so great. It introduced me to all sorts of new bands of similar style and genre. I actually started buying new albums again when I listened to Pandora.

 

And then the music industry went and sued them out of existence.

 

Honestly the entertainment industry is its own worst enemy. As much as people like Hurlshot try to paint them as the victim, I just don't feel it. On that note, I suggest people use of this before purchasing music in future: http://www.riaaradar.com/

 

You'd be surprised how many artists don't fall under the thumb of the RIAA.

 

Just because someone is extremely wealthy doesn't mean it is ok to go in and steal little stuff from them. The issue really isn't about the victim, it's about the perpetrator. When you pirate, you are committing a crime. There is no moral justification for it. This is entertainment stuff, you don't need it to live or survive. It is theft, plain and simple.

 

I'm very supportive of going after publishers and the music industry in order to get them to change their faulty business plans. I'm not a supporter of DRM when it complicates life for the consumer. But piracy is not the way to battle it.

 

edit: For Gorgon and anyone else, it's Gametap.

Edited September 17, 2008 by Hurlshot