EA Sticking With SecuROM

[SteveThaiBinh]

Refusing to buy a game and then writing to the publisher and press explaining why has more effect than simply not buying the game. Amnesty International is founded on the principle that polite letters of complaint have power beyond what you might expect.

[Pidesco]

Isn't Amnesty International pretty powerless?

[neckthrough]

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.

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?

[Moatilliatta]

He didn't say anything about a stalemate. All he said was that neither side can really prove their claims and hinting that both sides are overreacting.

 

Also I'd like to see your argument for game DRM being ethically wrong.

[neckthrough]

He didn't say anything about a stalemate. All he said was that neither side can really prove their claims and hinting that both sides are overreacting.

 

Also I'd like to see your argument for game DRM being ethically wrong.

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!

[random n00b]

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.

Has anyone actually made the claim that DRM actually causes significant loss of sales? I haven't seen that, myself, and personally I don't believe it does.

 

But that has nothing to do with not wanting to install malware in my computer and/or waste time begging for something I have already paid for. That's as "meaningful" as it gets for me.

Edited September 15, 2008 by random n00b

[mkreku]

I didn't bother with Mass Effect because of the DRM. I may buy it when it joins one of those "Sold Out" series since they usually don't have the same amount of DRM attached to them.

 

One person, very anecdotal, but still.. I can't be the only one who thought like this, can I?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Nope, you are not. I did not buy Spore because of DRM, nor will I buy Mass Effect or any other game that uses that level of "protection" - no matter how good they might be.

[Azure79]

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.

 

I think the main gripe with most people is they paid for a product and they should be able to use it without restrictions and not be treated like potential pirates. Its obvious that DRM is pretty powerless against people hacking the game and putting up for download so why continue to include it and potentially cause problems for paying legit customers?

 

It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Scenario one: Include DRM and the game will be cracked and be ready for DL pretty soon or even before the game releases. Some paying customers run into problems with DRM. DRM continues to get a bad rep as will publishers who use it excessively.

 

Scenario two: Just accept that there are hackers out there that will crack your game and don't include DRM. Sure there will always be people who complain about technical difficulties, but at least it won't be because of tracking software or whatever programs in DRM.

 

I think its a source of challenge and pride for a lot of the people out there who hack games. Why not try taking away the source of that pride?

 

The current situation doesn't seem to be curbing piracy much. Try something different that doesn't involve ever more draconian control measures.

[Gorgon]

Every game has DRM, that's not the issue, if it didn't publishers would put out a game and merely beg people to pay them. I wouldn't want my wages based on that concept. The problem is the three installs limit. I'm not going to pay full price for a crappy deal like that.

[Azure79]

I was using DRM as kind of a all-encompassing restrictive measures, but yeah, three installs is simply bad.

[random n00b]

Every game has DRM, that's not the issue, if it didn't publishers would put out a game and merely beg people to pay them.

That's fundamentally different from the current scenario of rampant piracy how? You only pay for games if you feel morally obliged to.

[Hell Kitty]

Has anyone actually made the claim that DRM actually causes significant loss of sales?

 

I assume every time anyone says something like "People who would have otherwise bought the game now think twice" they are suggesting those lost sales are significant, otherwise why even mention it?

 

To the publisher, is "I won't buy this game because of DRM" any different to "I won't buy this game because it's a console port" or "I won't buy this game because it's buggy" or "I won't buy this game because I don't like it"? How is "I'll pirate this game because I don't like DRM" different to "I'll pirate this game because I don't like the developer" or "I'll pirate this game because I can't afford it" or "I'll pirate this game because I never intend to buy it"? That's why pirating or avoiding buying a game as a form of protest is pointless.

 

Publishers will continue to use copy protection as long as they think it works. If no pirated copy available 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 copy protection works. Whereas one person not buying a copy because of the protection it uses seems to be enough to prove to gamers that DRM is a terrible, immoral waste of money.

 

Companies wanting gamers to prove they own the copy of the game they're using is nothing new. Neither are gamers who feel entitled to any game without having to pay for it. Publishers wouldn't have any reason to use copy protection if no one pirated games, but people will still pirate games even if none use copy protection. Many folks might like to use copy protection as justifying their piracy, but the truth is they'll just find some other reason, like they can't afford it, or it only provided a mere 10 hours of horrible entertainment they were forced to endure.

 

Personally, I don't like the idea of games installing hidden protection systems without my knowledge, but the reality is that is doesn't really affect me so I don't care. Which translates to I'm not going to avoid buying a game I want because of the copy protection it uses. I really don't like the idea of limited installs or being connected to the internet to play, but I'm computer savvy enough that I can always use a crack to get around that.

[random n00b]

I assume every time anyone says something like "People who would have otherwise bought the game now think twice" they are suggesting those lost sales are significant, otherwise why even mention it?

I don't know. Because it's true? There may not be many of us (probably not enough to make a dent in sales overall), but that doesn't mean we don't exist.

 

People weren't too aware of spywares and adwares say, ten years ago, but they are now. Word of mouth is a powerful thing, and perhaps if the real deal behind DRM gets more exposure, it WILL be enough of a problem for companies. Even EA changed their corporate policy regarding acquired studios, and I don't think it took anything more than a lot of badmouthing from fans.

 

 

To the publisher, is "I won't buy this game because of DRM" any different to "I won't buy this game because it's a console port" or "I won't buy this game because it's buggy" or "I won't buy this game because I don't like it"? How is "I'll pirate this game because I don't like DRM" different to "I'll pirate this game because I don't like the developer" or "I'll pirate this game because I can't afford it" or "I'll pirate this game because I never intend to buy it"? That's why pirating or avoiding buying a game as a form of protest is pointless.

Yeah, silent protest in that vein is totally pointless.

 

However, the rest of that paragraph doesn't make much sense, from a business perspective at least. Sure, the publisher can find any number of excuses to dismiss lost sales as "they would have pirated it anyway", and then justify the implementation of obnoxious DRM systems, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still lost sales, and that's bad for them, and for them alone. Buggy games are a cause of concern due to potential lost sales, but DRM shouldn't be subject to the same kind of scrutiny? That's a fairly self-defeating approach to it, inventing excuses to explain lost sales rather than making the product as desirable a purchase as possible, don't you think?

 

Further, that's the exact reverse of the argument often used by pirates that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". The difference is that pirates aren't in to make a living. But I can see where you're coming from.

 

 

Publishers will continue to use copy protection as long as they think it works. If no pirated copy available 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 copy protection works. Whereas one person not buying a copy because of the protection it uses seems to be enough to prove to gamers that DRM is a terrible, immoral waste of money.

I really can't see how it is *not* a waste of money - illegally acquiring games couldn't be any easier or quicker.

 

 

Personally, I don't like the idea of games installing hidden protection systems without my knowledge, but the reality is that is doesn't really affect me so I don't care. Which translates to I'm not going to avoid buying a game I want because of the copy protection it uses. I really don't like the idea of limited installs or being connected to the internet to play, but I'm computer savvy enough that I can always use a crack to get around that.

This simply isn't true. While you may be able to circumvent copy protection in the games you legally own, it doesn't mean you are unaffected by it. For one, you are being forced to spend more time searching for a solution that isn't always drag-'n-drop, this also forces you to depend on third parties to enjoy something you have paid for. But since you are taking a purely practical approach, this isn't much of a problem. But the worse comes with the fact that sidestepping the protection with a no-CD fix doesn't prevent the malware from being installed to begin with. Again, you are forced to remove it manually, which may or may not cause more problems. Edited September 16, 2008 by random n00b

[Nick_i_am]

I wouldn't care except that the Starforce protection on my old copy of 'Soldiers' is causing it to crash on my old computer, making LAN games of it impossible.

 

With any luck the GOG version of the game will fix this issue.

[Tigranes]

I really do think that it's quite difficult for the companies to judge exactly (or roughly) how many sales were lost (or even more difficult, nearly lost) to DRM concerns, how many buyers were driven to piracy by DRM, etc. (Especially since it's usually not black and white.) Which is why making a fuss and raising voices (without being, I don't know, a jerk) on the internet does serve a purpose. As rn says, silent protests alone are basically making you and your buying power a sucker. It's important to get the word out 'on the street' about what you're doing and why. I think it's great that ME and Spore's DRm are getting so much press, and in some cases bad press, everywhere. It won't have as big an impact as the protesters would like it to have, but suggesting it's futile or silly is logically bankrupt.

[ramza]

So, has anyone managed to find a way to bypass Mass Effect's DRM? Is there a crack that does that?

[Krookie]

yeah it's called an Xbox 360

 

amirite?

[Tigranes]

pretty expensive 4 a crack krookie amirite

[Krookie]

lol 199 aint 2 bad

 

amirite?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So, has anyone managed to find a way to bypass Mass Effect's DRM? Is there a crack that does that?

 

Yes and yes.

[Gorgon]

Every game has DRM, that's not the issue, if it didn't publishers would put out a game and merely beg people to pay them.

That's fundamentally different from the current scenario of rampant piracy how? You only pay for games if you feel morally obliged to.

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

Edited September 16, 2008 by Gorgon

[Hurlshort]

So wait...after the 3 installs, you just need to call in and get a new code? That doesn't seem all that draconian.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So wait...after the 3 installs, you just need to call in and get a new code?

 

It's a little more complicated than that, and the new codes are given out on a "case by case basis."

[Hurlshort]

So wait...after the 3 installs, you just need to call in and get a new code?

 

It's a little more complicated than that, and the new codes are given out on a "case by case basis."

 

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.