EA Sticking With SecuROM

[Lare Kikkeli]

Protip: Easy way to get rid of DRM on mp3's is to burn them on a CD and re-rip them. The quality will drop a little but I guess people who would pay for mp3's won't care about stuff like sound quality.

 

Still waiting for the online music store with lossless only and a pdf of the cover so I can make my own case for the cd...

 

edit: Also Radiohead are a bunch of greedy ****s who used the whole FREE ONLINE DISTRIBUTION as a gimmick to generate more sales. The version of In Rainbows that was free to download was 160 kbps, slightly above youtube quality. And that's fine, you don't need to give away anything but if the product you are releasing "for free" is butchered and mangled you probably should mention it. Trent Reznor on the other hand is a cool guy and I've got nothing but respect for him.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Lare Kikkeli

[mkreku]

The version of In Rainbows that was free to download was 160 kbps, slightly above youtube quality.

Please enlighten me: what kind of bitrate does your delicate ears need to be satisfied?

[samm]

The version of In Rainbows that was free to download was 160 kbps, slightly above youtube quality. And that's fine, you don't need to give away anything but if the product you are releasing "for free" is butchered and mangled you probably should mention it. Trent Reznor on the other hand is a cool guy and I've got nothing but respect for him.

And that comes from the same person who advices to burn MP3s and compress them again... It may not be totally perfect, but you can't expect the pioneers to be as progressive as Reznor (who offers downloads above CD quality). Youtube sounds f*** bad compared to my old 128kbit MP3s, even WMAs. Edited September 18, 2008 by samm

[Pop]

The ear can't really tell the difference between anything around 192 kbps and bitrates above that, unless you've got a really nice sound system / headset. But if you do have a high-end system, you're going to want those higher bitrates, because the bass in particular is going to be so much better.

 

In any case, don't buy your mp3s from Itunes. Get them from Amazon (who offer higher-end variable bitrates) or the like. Less loss, no DRM.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Pop

[Hurlshort]

So I've installed Spore, and I've noticed nothing out of the ordinary. I really think folks are a bit over-dramatic about this DRM stuff. If I need to install it four times, I'll have to call EA. That seems like a fairly minor problem. I think people should get on their case about getting a toll free number and stop complaining about the DRM.

[Lare Kikkeli]

The version of In Rainbows that was free to download was 160 kbps, slightly above youtube quality.

Please enlighten me: what kind of bitrate does your delicate ears need to be satisfied?

 

Well with good enough gear you can hear the difference between any compressed format and lossless, but you have to train not too much unlike a jedi to get there

 

The version of In Rainbows that was free to download was 160 kbps, slightly above youtube quality. And that's fine, you don't need to give away anything but if the product you are releasing "for free" is butchered and mangled you probably should mention it. Trent Reznor on the other hand is a cool guy and I've got nothing but respect for him.

And that comes from the same person who advices to burn MP3s and compress them again... It may not be totally perfect, but you can't expect the pioneers to be as progressive as Reznor (who offers downloads above CD quality). Youtube sounds f*** bad compared to my old 128kbit MP3s, even WMAs.

 

Well that advice was for people who pay for DRM'd mp3's in the first place. People who actually care about the quality drop wouldn't buy from the iTunes store in the first place. Also Trent wasn't too much behind Radiohead in releasing stuff for free (iirc 6 months give or take a few). The difference is he'd done his research and was really fed up with the music industry treating their client base (and the artists!) like poo, where Radiohead just released a bunch of low bitrate mp3's to generate sales for their next album.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Lare Kikkeli

[Humodour]

The ear can't really tell the difference between anything around 192 kbps and bitrates above that, unless you've got a really nice sound system / headset. But if you do have a high-end system, you're going to want those higher bitrates, because the bass in particular is going to be so much better.

 

Not only that, but the human brain has an enormous propensity for pattern matching and noise cancellation. Within mere minutes of listening to lower quality kbps music, your brain has adjusted to the point you can't tell the difference.

 

Indignation over bitrates above 128kbps is somewhat like a French noble sniffing their nose up at a $30 bottle of wine.

[aries101]

So I've installed Spore, and I've noticed nothing out of the ordinary. I really think folks are a bit over-dramatic about this DRM stuff. If I need to install it four times, I'll have to call EA. That seems like a fairly minor problem. I think people should get on their case about getting a toll free number and stop complaining about the DRM.

 

I wouldn't worry about getting a fourth activation either if it were done like in Bioshock's and Two World's case - swift and with expediency while the supporting staff did it with a smile. Judging from the tales of the EA support on the bioware boards EA support is pretty much clueless about what they're doing - at least in the US. If you don't get a supervisor, your chances are very slim getting more activations than three. Another thing is that further activations are given out by

'a vse by case basis'. This actually means that a support staff can deny you the right to play the game you have paid good (and much) monbey for to play.

 

If you want to set up multiple accounts on sporepedia you can't. You have to buy a game for each of the accounts - after you have registered (or activated) the game online. I'm happy that you don't have any problems; families with children do, however.

[Hurlshort]

So I've installed Spore, and I've noticed nothing out of the ordinary. I really think folks are a bit over-dramatic about this DRM stuff. If I need to install it four times, I'll have to call EA. That seems like a fairly minor problem. I think people should get on their case about getting a toll free number and stop complaining about the DRM.

 

I wouldn't worry about getting a fourth activation either if it were done like in Bioshock's and Two World's case - swift and with expediency while the supporting staff did it with a smile. Judging from the tales of the EA support on the bioware boards EA support is pretty much clueless about what they're doing - at least in the US. If you don't get a supervisor, your chances are very slim getting more activations than three. Another thing is that further activations are given out by

'a vse by case basis'. This actually means that a support staff can deny you the right to play the game you have paid good (and much) monbey for to play.

 

If you want to set up multiple accounts on sporepedia you can't. You have to buy a game for each of the accounts - after you have registered (or activated) the game online. I'm happy that you don't have any problems; families with children do, however.

 

Actually my daughter and wife both play the game. We use the same account. If they were dead set on their own, I'd happily purchase a separate copy. As is, I don't see why you need more than one account unless you want to play at the same time on different computers, which again would make me purchase another copy. I understand that the manual said you could have more than one account, but that was obviously a mistake. They happen.

 

EA having bad customer support is a problem. But it's a problem that enough customer complaints will help change. This is what I'm saying:

 

EA has committed to DRM. They clearly aren't abandoning it. It is not a battle that a few people who haven't bought the product can win.

 

The battle for better customer support is much more reasonable. Customers can win this battle. You have paid money for the game, you should expect a certain level of service. Companies don't like to see their paying customers deluging them with complaints. EA can change their customer support, it's a much simpler process than totally reworking their DRM policies.

[Tigranes]

So I've installed Spore, and I've noticed nothing out of the ordinary. I really think folks are a bit over-dramatic about this DRM stuff. If I need to install it four times, I'll have to call EA.

 

Short-sighted, Hurlshot. The "seems fine to my situation" argument only works for specific situations, and not the debate as a whole. So you buy Spore and let them do whatever, but what if, later on down the line, they introduce more draconian DRM that does affect you? I'm sure you won't be thinking the same then. But why wait until it gets there? It's a matter of principle because sooner or later this hurricane might wreck all the homes, not just your neighbour's.

 

The battle for better customer support is much more reasonable. Customers can win this battle.

 

Here I can see your logic, but I'm curious as to what prompts you to say that customers can win the battle against EA's customer support, but not against DRM. EA have been doing [insert all the expletives you know here] crap customer service for years. They've been on the radar for it before, they've had complaints before. It's still a piece of crap. DRM, Customer Service, trying to change both you come up against the wall of the silent majority... the only variable is, will either issue generate a newsworthy story enough to get it going on mainstream media, and get the people to really dislike/boycott EA (or others) for it?

[mkreku]

Well with good enough gear you can hear the difference between any compressed format and lossless, but you have to train not too much unlike a jedi to get there

Well, since you think 160 kbps is "slightly above Youtube quality", would you mind doing a quick test?

 

I'll link you to ten 320 kbps MP3's, where some have been downsampled to 160 kbps, then upsampled back to 320 kbps. This means they all look like they are 320 kbps, but some of them sounds like 160 kbps.

Give it a try here: 320-160 kbps Test.rar

 

I'm curious to see if you actually can hear a difference. I can not.

[alanschu]

I'm a bit curious....will any of you completely abandon PC gaming if all companies start using similar DRM methods?

 

When I say abandon, I also mean never pirate any of the games as well.

Edited September 19, 2008 by alanschu

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm a bit curious....will any of you completely abandon PC gaming if all companies start using similar DRM methods?

 

I would not abandon playing old games, nor would I get a console; however, I would not, in all probability, be buying any new releases.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Hurlshort]

Geez. They are just games, people. I'm not sure why you take them so seriously. What's the issue with consoles, anyway? I just don't understand why, if you enjoy playing games, you would put so many limits on which ones you can play.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What's the issue with consoles, anyway?

 

Modding is a major issue, the control scheme and upgrading are others.

[random n00b]

Yay, quote war.

 

I'm saying the people it does break the deal for, well there simply aren't enough of them to matter, even though they might want to think otherwise.

What? Suddenly you know this to be true? Whoa, where did the "we don't know either way" thing go?

 

I'm sure you can bring numbers up to back your assertions, then.

 

I agree with this, but if a game is selling well enough for publishers what reason do they have to change? Especially for a bunch of people who "never would have bought the game anyway"?

Because conformism isn't a good business philosophy. With that, we wouldn't have stuff like Steam.

 

 

Ineffective in stopping piracy sure, but we don't know what's effective or ineffective to the publisher. Like I said earlier, if no pirated copy available immediately or a pirated copy that's limited in some way convinces one person to buy a legit copy of the game, then perhaps that's enough to convince publishers that the copy protection is effective.

Sure, because publishers don't work with logic and numbers, and further, DRM suites are licensed for free. Thus, a single pirate forced to buy the game justifies the expense of putting DRM in. Eh, okay. You can really only stretch the "you don't know what publishers are thinking" argument so much.

 

 

Pissed off customers only matter if there are enough of them. The same people saying over and over "it doesn't work" and "it only hurts paying customers" isn't going to convince publishers of anything.

That's assuming every publisher in the sector implements DRM (SecuROM-like, as discussed in this thread), which is a fairly inaccurate assumption. And since we *don't* know how many those people are, this just holds no water.

 

 

Except I've never needed to do that, so no, it's not affecting me right there.

You've never had to search for a no-cd crack? What does that mean, that you always play with the CD in, or that you make your own no-CDs? I'd bow to your mad skillz, but then I remembered you wrote this:

but I'm computer savvy enough that I can always use a crack to get around that.

So, you're basically saying that you just put up with DRM, or that you have never encountered it, but you'd be able to get around it if you needed to. If the former, you are being affected by it. If the latter, you are obviously just lying, as evidenced by other posts in this thread, and in any case, you'd be affected in that instance.

 

 

I'm sure the companies that use DRM believe they have a good reason, and insisting they don't won't convince them otherwise.

Yes, your point? I already stated I'm not trying to convince companies. If I would, this wouldn't be the best place to do so, don't you think? And that they think they have a good reason doesn't make it a good reason. Yeah, the devil's advocate sure is fun to play, eh?

 

 

Things like limited activations and needing a connection to the internet to play are new, but jumping through hoops to play a game you've bought is unfortunately nothing new to PC gaming, and it's something PC gamers have shown they will put up with.

That's a (possibly intentionally?) misleading statement, but nice try. Are you saying that gamers have shown they'll go through the usual hassles to play games, or are you specifically referring to SecuROM? If the latter, that's strictly false, as at least one person hasn't bought Spore and MEPC based on it - me. Again, how this is significant depends on numbers. Numbers that I'm ardently waiting for you to post.

[random n00b]

EA has committed to DRM. They clearly aren't abandoning it. It is not a battle that a few people who haven't bought the product can win.

Because you say so. Ah, well, then.

 

Indeed, defeatism has never accomplished anything. But hey, don't let me stop you from purchasing a copy for yourself, one for your child, and one for your wife. Because that's the right thing to do.

 

 

The battle for better customer support is much more reasonable. Customers can win this battle. You have paid money for the game, you should expect a certain level of service. Companies don't like to see their paying customers deluging them with complaints. EA can change their customer support, it's a much simpler process than totally reworking their DRM policies.

Yes, you obviously know what you are talking about. Because that's exactly what happened with C&C:TFD; two years and a half after the release of the game, it's still bug-ridden, with EA openly stating they are focusing on other stuff. That is in spite of their boards (and customer support) being flooded with complaints. So yeah, they have shown to be sensitive to customer unhappiness.

 

 

I'm a bit curious....will any of you completely abandon PC gaming if all companies start using similar DRM methods?

 

When I say abandon, I also mean never pirate any of the games as well.

I'd stop buying new games and stick to MMOs that don't need that kind of garbage. Oh, and... Steam.

[Hell Kitty]

But why wait until it gets there?

 

Because it might never get there? Why fight a battle against a problem that doesn't, and might never exist?

 

Oh, and you're playing Spore, so what was your experience with activation?

Edited September 19, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[neckthrough]

I'm a bit curious....will any of you completely abandon PC gaming if all companies start using similar DRM methods?

 

When I say abandon, I also mean never pirate any of the games as well.

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.

[Hell Kitty]

What? Suddenly you know this to be true? Whoa, where did the "we don't know either way" thing go?

 

No I don't know it's true, I'm simply making an assumption based on the fact there isn't any evidence that what the anti-DRM crowd claims is true, that DRM significantly hurts sales. They're the ones making the claim so they're the ones who need to provide the evidence.

 

how this is significant depends on numbers. Numbers that I'm ardently waiting for you to post.

 

Why do I have to post numbers, I'm not the one making any definitive claims, the onus isn't on me. There are people who don't buy particular games because they include DRM, no one is arguing that, what I'm arguing is that the anti-DRM crowd are as unable to prove that DRM significantly hurts sales as publishers are unable to prove that every pirated copy is a lost sale. And until either side is able to backup their claims I'm not going to worry about either of them.

 

If the former, you are being affected by it.

 

I've already pointed out that by saying I've never been affected by it I mean I've never had copy protection stop me from playing games I own, but I'm sure you'll continue to ignore that. Despite the anti-DRM crowd insisting that "it only hurts paying customers", I'm a paying customer who has never been hurt by it (apparently so is Hurlshot).

 

I already stated I'm not trying to convince companies.

 

This isn't a private conversation, and not everything I post is a direct response to you, rather it concerns the topic in general.

 

If I would, this wouldn't be the best place to do so, don't you think?

 

Exactly! What good are the people who claim to be protesting doing if they only post about it on internet message boards.

 

And that they think they have a good reason doesn't make it a good reason.

 

It does to them.

[Hell Kitty]

I'm a bit curious....will any of you completely abandon PC gaming if all companies start using similar DRM methods?

 

When I say abandon, I also mean never pirate any of the games as well.

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.

 

I have no problem with people protesting, and if enough people protest and convince major publisher to abandon DRM then great. I don't think repeating the same old lines over and over is an effective form of protest, especially when those claims aren't as great as protesters claim ("it only hurts sales!" - but sales are good "it only affects paying customers!" - but most paying customers activate their games without hassle), and as I've never had a problem with any sort of copy protection in the roughly 20 years I've been PC gaming, it's not something that gets my knickers in a knot.

[alanschu]

Yay, quote war.

 

I'm saying the people it does break the deal for, well there simply aren't enough of them to matter, even though they might want to think otherwise.

What? Suddenly you know this to be true? Whoa, where did the "we don't know either way" thing go?

 

I'm sure you can bring numbers up to back your assertions, then.

 

 

HAHA awesome.

Edited September 19, 2008 by alanschu

[alanschu]

I'm a bit curious....will any of you completely abandon PC gaming if all companies start using similar DRM methods?

 

When I say abandon, I also mean never pirate any of the games as well.

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.

 

Because I've been listening to the same nonsense for years about how anti-piracy measures hurt PC sales. I used to be on the anti-piracy bandwagon, but then I realized their shtick is old and boring too.

 

I have never had a need to get a no-CD crack. For some reason I seem to be one of the few people that doesn't mind when I need a CD in the drive...I mean, given I've been gaming on computers for years and years and years, where all games except a few exceptions have required me to have the CD in the drive, or the floppy disk in the drive, or whatever. In fact, the overwhelming majority of times I have played games without needing a CD or a floppy disk in the drive, were the times in my youth when I actively WAS pirating game software. Heck, I had a CD burner before people even knew what they were, and was pretty much a printing press for games. I even turned a profit!

 

I have never had an issue with anti-piracy or DRM measures. Whether they be Starforce, SecuROM, or even Steam (which was vilified back in the day too...I mean, no hard copy CD? OMG OMG OMG).

 

 

I am very much in Hell Kitty's camp that both sides have become pretty retarded. I used to be in the "boo-urns" copy protection camp, because it interfered with my pirating. When I realized I wanted to go into software development, I realized I wouldn't want people to pirate my software, so I stopped pirating pretty much altogether. Even my OS is 100% legit, and I don't typically lend my CDs out to people either. However, I began to realize that this camp was just as stupid, and just says the diametric opposite of it (though I do tend lean more towards the developer than the consumer in this regard still, though probably more just because it's more fun...and in general I think people are stupid)

 

Furthermore, it annoys me when people have clearly made their point, yet continue to randomly chime in with "Boo DRM I no likey" type comments which interfere with discussion. At least this thread is actually about DRM, so it makes sense here.

 

My "arguments" against you and all those like you are that I have been hearing the same **** for years. Furthermore, it'd be a pretty ****ing boring topic if all it was was people going "OMG ya teh DRM is evil!!!!"

 

As for my skepticism about law abiding citizens that would truly boycott gaming entirely in response to DRM....well, that's anecdotal based on my personal experiences......but I've never seen it actually happen, despite people being all uppity about it. Every single time they have either rethought their boycott when some kickass game comes out, or the resort to piracy because they feel they're still entitled to the game for some ****ed up reason.

 

 

 

Here's a really ****ed up thing too. The more challenging the DRM becomes, the more the pirate groups want to crack it, which makes the DRM more challenging, which makes the pirate groups try harder. People say "well, stop the DRM then!" But you can just as easily say "stop cracking the games then." If the pirates want to show that piracy doesn't negatively affect sales....why not demonstrate it by not cracking a game? It's the same ****ing argument, just from the other side. Neither side wants to give, so neither side will. No one side is ****ing over the industry. The tandem of both of them are IMO.

Edited September 19, 2008 by alanschu

[Deadly_Nightshade]

For some reason I seem to be one of the few people that doesn't mind when I need a CD in the drive.

 

I'll write a better response when I wake up tomorrow, but I just thought I would quickly address this one point. While I would prefer if games were playable without the DVD or CD -mainly because I do play games on my laptop in addition to my main PC and thus I don't like carrying around the original copies of games as they could be easily damaged- that is not my biggest concern when it comes to data rights management. For example, I would have bought The Witcher: Enhanced Edition off of Impulse if I could have gotten a physical DVD, yes I am still one of those people who like their tangible products, but instead got the regular, TAGES-enabled boxed version. Sure, I might need to keep the DVD in the drive for now, but I am sure there will be a crack sooner or later - and if there is not I'll just pick up another copy when the price drops. Now, you might be tempted to say something like this; "You SPENT MONEY on a DRM-enabled game?! Doesn't this make you a hypocrite for critizising EA?" However, you would be wrong. For TAGES, as far as I know, is nothing more than an extremely complicated DVD-check and does not require you to register your PC or tick off one of your three, or five, installations whenever you set-up your game. I might not like it, but it certainly seems a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

[Tigranes]

Because it might never get there? Why fight a battle against a problem that doesn't, and might never exist?

 

Would be nice if it didn't, but I'm certainly not going to lie down and make it more likely.

 

I'm not saying you should join in the 'crusade' even if you personally have no reason to. I'm saying your "hey I'm fine with it" argument doesn't hold water anywhere, except to justify why you personally won't invest time & effort in the issue.

 

I'm a bit curious....will any of you completely abandon PC gaming if all companies start using similar DRM methods?

 

When I say abandon, I also mean never pirate any of the games as well.

 

It depends on the exact situation and the degree, but if DRM continues to be fronted using the same (sometimes invalid) excuses and arguments, and the degree of severity and idiocy escalates, say, to the level of Starforce, I certainly won't be buying that junk. I don't pay money for a virus.

 

Spore has just eased another of their DRM restrictions, and that's a great thing. But the thing with ME and Spore is, EA came really strong and blunt, then quite quickly eased off... thinking that they did that on purpose might be too much of a conspiracy theory (although that is very well possible), but the point is: if for example Starforce becomes the industry standard, games like Spore might get its measures repealed through widespread discontent and the weight of numbers, but will others? As someone who plays a lot of non-blockbuster releases, that's a concern. That's why killing this idiotic policy trend before it becomes a standard is a concern for me.

 

Not going to intervene in rn-hk quote war, since I don't have time to read. Heh.