EA Sticking With SecuROM

[alanschu]

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.

 

Really? How can you say that? Let's not forget about the negative marketing that comes when a cracked copy of the game ends up being broken and people report problems and issues that don't actually exist in a legitimate version.

 

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

 

So?

 

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.

 

It is damaging its reputation? Of course, piracy is joyous and wonderful, because as you say, generally people that pirate wouldn't have bought it anyways. I mean, the mere idea that somebody could get something they want (and would be willing to pay for) for free has no impact on game purchases....yet DRM is obviously the downfall of gaming...

 

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.

 

Of course, if you play through several hours worth, even possibly completing the game, but you just don't think it's fun, then you'll not buy it. Right? If you don't think a game is worth your money when it first comes out for whatever reason, why don't you just wait for the price to drop?

 

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.

 

Sweet, haven't heard an anecdote like this before. The funny thing is, I know someone that literally said "Pfft, I could buy that game, and even would, but I can get it for free so why bother?" Wow, that was fun!

 

 

It's all rhetoric on both sides as far as I'm concerned.

[alanschu]

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

 

Nice read.

 

 

I like how cost was an issue...

 

People are complaining about the prices of games, while the price of game has remained pretty much static since I was a kid (20 years ago). If you think that $60 is too much for a game...then why can't you wait until it's $20 to buy?

 

Though the fellow said that his games cost around $20, and that is still too much for some people.

 

 

He said that only 5% of them were confessions about "I like free stuff." I would be surprised if many of the people (particularly the ones that complained about cost) aren't in the same boat, but have created their own rationalizations because it makes them feel more justified in doing it.

[Hurlshort]

Heh, comparing video game prices to movie ticket prices makes me realize how good we have it!

 

"Don't think twice about the $5 you're blowin'"

Edited September 17, 2008 by Hurlshot

[Humodour]

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.

 

I take issue with any DRM that requires remote activation (excepting Steam which is very well planned and seamlessly integrated).

 

It's not like this is an outrageous stance to take.

 

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

 

No dude, I'm trying hard to argue against big corporations fondling the government for legal immunity to abuse civil rights.

 

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.

 

It's not plain and simple at all. What is copyright? Why does it exist? Where do things like patents, trademarks, intellectual property, etc originate and why? What purpose do they serve now and what purpose did they originally serve? Is current copyright law perfect? No, it certainly isn't; you'll find much debate on that issue. While ever there is such debate how can you call the issue "plain and simple"? Sure, you can go 100% by the law, but the law is shaped by the evolution of society (and includes lots of things based on precedent and de facto standard). And when that law is being shaped by big corporations spending lots of money to lobby for their own interests how legitimate is it? Is the law in China as legitimate as the law in Australia? Citizens have every right to discuss this issue and question the law where appropriate, so, as I said, the stereotypical RIAA argument of "it's stealing! stealing is wrong!" falls on deaf ears on my end, I'm afraid, since copyright law has barely ever had time for the paint to dry. (The Betamax case, anybody?)

 

You need to understand these issues before you can go around blindly claiming it's 'theft'. And to call copyright a moral issue is very murky water.

 

Anyway, I'm not encouraging or advocating piracy. I'm pointing out that piracy is little more than a scapegoat for the music publishers to try and milk more money out of people while claiming to be the victim. It happens every time disruptive tech comes along - radio, video, cassette, CD, DVD, MP3 players... Piracy is as prominent as it ever has been (and DRM is as useless as ever), which is part of why the whole charade is so dubious.

 

Anyway I'm mostly angry with the music industry. As far as games go, I think they've actually been pretty decent about it all. I hate overly restrictive DRM like in Spore, but on average besides some hyperbole here and there about "woe is us - piracy will be our doom, let's move to consoles", the PC gaming industry is quite well grounded. I don't think DRM is a fundamentally bad concept as long as it is moderated. Disk checks? They're fine. They balance ease of protecting copyright with the ethical worth of doing so. But when you stop trusting your own customers with where they install their software, however, you've ruined that balance (EA).

[neckthrough]

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.

Good question.

 

It's more of a service-based model than a sales-based one. I think I'm okay with it. The "file" on your hard drive is indeed physically a DRM'd music file, but functionally it's mostly behaving as a cache for content you're sort of streaming from the service provider. The music store could have equivalently implemented this simply by requesting you for a certain section of your hard drive on which it maintains its global cache in some custom format. You never really "bought" the song, so IMO it's okay to not expect any fair-use rights related to the product (well, there is no product). As long as the implementation is benign (i.e. the music store doesn't install a rootkit or other junk software on my machine) I'd be fine with it.

[ramza]

Do you think EA's policy will affect Bioware in any fashion?

 

If people, like us, stop buying their games, Bio will be obliged to shut its doors, no?

[Hurlshort]

Do you think EA's policy will affect Bioware in any fashion?

 

If people, like us, stop buying their games, Bio will be obliged to shut its doors, no?

 

I think you overestimate your numbers.

[alanschu]

Do you think EA's policy will affect Bioware in any fashion?

 

If people, like us, stop buying their games, Bio will be obliged to shut its doors, no?

 

 

If no one bought Bioware games, then the studio would probably go under. I am skeptical of this happening since they have a good install base on the consoles now. If PC gamers boycott them, then you'd likely see them stop making PC games.

Edited September 17, 2008 by alanschu

[Deadly_Nightshade]

If PC gamers boycott them, then you'd likely see them stop making PC games.

 

Good riddance if they're not going to change the DRM that they use.

[alanschu]

If PC gamers boycott them, then you'd likely see them stop making PC games.

 

Good riddance if they're not going to change the DRM that they use.

 

 

Your stance is QUITE clear on the issue.

[Deraldin]

If no one bought Bioware games, then the studio would probably go under. I am skeptical of this happening since they have a good install base on the consoles now. If PC gamers boycott them, then you'd likely see them stop making PC games.

 

Not counting Dragon Age, which has been in the works for quite some time, what was the last PC game that Bioware made?

[alanschu]

If no one bought Bioware games, then the studio would probably go under. I am skeptical of this happening since they have a good install base on the consoles now. If PC gamers boycott them, then you'd likely see them stop making PC games.

 

Not counting Dragon Age, which has been in the works for quite some time, what was the last PC game that Bioware made?

 

The cheeky answer is of course Mass Effect. Jade Empire had a PC version afterwards as well. The last time I remember being hyped for a PC version of a game was KOTOR, which came out shortly after it did for the console, and I believe for the most part was built as much in parallel as it could.

[Deraldin]

If no one bought Bioware games, then the studio would probably go under. I am skeptical of this happening since they have a good install base on the consoles now. If PC gamers boycott them, then you'd likely see them stop making PC games.

 

Not counting Dragon Age, which has been in the works for quite some time, what was the last PC game that Bioware made?

 

The cheeky answer is of course Mass Effect. Jade Empire had a PC version afterwards as well. The last time I remember being hyped for a PC version of a game was KOTOR, which came out shortly after it did for the console, and I believe for the most part was built as much in parallel as it could.

 

Yes, but how much work did Bioware actually do on the PC versions of Jade Empire and Mass Effect? Jade Empire PC was farmed out to Grey Matter and Mass Effect PC was farmed out to Demiurge. One could make an argument that except for Dragon Age, which I can't seem to find when it was first leaked/announced, Bioware has already stopped making PC games.

[ramza]

I will hate Bio (and EA) with passion if they ever decide to add DRM to Dragon Age

 

It will really be a shame since BIO is my favorite game developer alongside with Obsidian...

[alanschu]

What happens if Obsidian adds DRM too?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What happens if Obsidian adds DRM too?

 

I will, sadly, not spend money on the latest Obsidian products.

[samm]

What happens if Obsidian adds DRM too?

They do use SecuRom already, you know?

[alanschu]

What happens if Obsidian adds DRM too?

 

I will, sadly, not spend money on the latest Obsidian products.

 

 

You'll still play them though, right?

[Moatilliatta]

What happens if Obsidian adds DRM too?

They do use SecuRom already, you know?

I'm pretty sure that DRM in this context means 'stuff that will do nasty stuff to your behind'.

 

Have we heard anything concrete on DA DRM? I would think there is a decent chance that it might be less awfull than the ME DRM if EA follows their current rule of downgrading their Securom DRM everytime large amounts of internet people complain.

[Dark_Raven]

Bioware was a good company until EA took over and destroyed its good reputation. SecuROM sucks as do any other annoying DRMs. If Obs wants to annoy their customers with this, no more Obs fan girl here.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What happens if Obsidian adds DRM too?

They do use SecuRom already, you know?

 

Sure, but not in the same way as EA - it is not as draconean.

 

What happens if Obsidian adds DRM too?

 

I will, sadly, not spend money on the latest Obsidian products.

 

 

You'll still play them though, right?

 

Nope. I have yet to play Mass Effect or Spore, I doubt that this stance will change because it's from another company.

[Hell Kitty]

making the product as desirable a purchase as possible

 

Just how undesirable does copy protection make a product? Just how many of the potential customers really care? Do PC games with DRM do worse than those without? This has been the entire point of my argument all along. Despite DRM and less than stellar reviews Spore is apparently selling really well. Publishers insist that piracy hurts PC gaming and gamers insist that DRM hurts PC gaming, and both sides assume it's an obvious fact, but neither side can offer any definitive proof and as such aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with them. The reason people make comments like DRM causing people to avoid the game when they otherwise would have bought it is because they think it matters (by significantly lowering sales proving DRM hurts the game), but we seem to be in agreement that it doesn't.

 

I really can't see how it is *not* a waste of money

 

I agree with that, as do many others, but like I mentioned previously, what a publisher thinks makes copy protection worth it is likely to differ from what gamers think.

 

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.

This simply isn't true.

 

Yes, it is true. When I say it doesn't affect me I mean copy protection has never stopped me from playing any game I own. Spending time finding third party nocd cracks for games with copy protection is no different to spending time finding them for games without copy protection, or time downloading patches or drivers, or time spent finding the ideal configuration, or even the time spent just installing the game. That's PC gaming, you can't stick the disc in the drive and begin playing straight away. The only game I've bought that required activation was Alone in the Dark. Entering the activation code was no different to entering registration codes for numerous games over the last couple decades. Doesn't require a cd so no time spent looking for a crack, and when uninstalling that game I revoked the license allowing me to reinstall later or sell the game. Not a problem.

[random n00b]

Just how undesirable does copy protection make a product? Just how many of the potential customers really care? Do PC games with DRM do worse than those without? This has been the entire point of my argument all along. Despite DRM and less than stellar reviews Spore is apparently selling really well. Publishers insist that piracy hurts PC gaming and gamers insist that DRM hurts PC gaming, and both sides assume it's an obvious fact, but neither side can offer any definitive proof and as such aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with them. The reason people make comments like DRM causing people to avoid the game when they otherwise would have bought it is because they think it matters (by significantly lowering sales proving DRM hurts the game), but we seem to be in agreement that it doesn't.

Yes, it's very easy to debate somebody else's point when you take fragments of what they say out of context, and then misrepresent. I didn't say that SecuROM-like anti-copy systems (from here on simply DRM) make or break the deal for most people. My point was that perhaps aiming to encourage legit purchases would be a better way of getting some pirates to actually buy games, instead of implementing devices that are patently ineffective, and piss off *only* paying customers. In this context, a game without DRM is "less undesirable" than one with.

 

 

I agree with that, as do many others, but like I mentioned previously, what a publisher thinks makes copy protection worth it is likely to differ from what gamers think.

Indeed. Because while DRM does not stop piracy in the least, it does make things like lending and second-hand sales next to impossible.

 

 

Yes, it is true. When I say it doesn't affect me I mean copy protection has never stopped me from playing any game I own. Spending time finding third party nocd cracks for games with copy protection is no different to spending time finding them for games without copy protection, or time downloading patches or drivers, or time spent finding the ideal configuration, or even the time spent just installing the game. That's PC gaming, you can't stick the disc in the drive and begin playing straight away. The only game I've bought that required activation was Alone in the Dark. Entering the activation code was no different to entering registration codes for numerous games over the last couple decades. Doesn't require a cd so no time spent looking for a crack, and when uninstalling that game I revoked the license allowing me to reinstall later or sell the game. Not a problem.

Only spending time finding a solution for circumventing (and cleansing your system from) copy protection, which may or may not be as simple as finding a no-cd, is added on top of everything else you need to do to get the game working already. So it's affecting you right there.

 

And please, don't patronize about PC gaming. This is just some company that's decided to make things more difficult than they need to be for no good reason. It's not "how things are", as it's not a prevalent practice, and it's never been.

Edited September 18, 2008 by random n00b

[Gorgon]

Yes, it's very easy to debate somebody else's point when you take fragments of what they say out of context, and then misrepresent

This is what everyone, without exception, does in a forum discussion. A good rule of thumb is that your most valid points will go unanswered and your weakest will be attacked mercilessly

[Hell Kitty]

I didn't say that SecuROM-like anti-copy systems (from here on simply DRM) make or break the deal for most people.

 

I never said you did. 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.

 

My point was that perhaps aiming to encourage legit purchases would be a better way of getting some pirates to actually buy games

 

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"?

 

instead of implementing devices that are patently ineffective

 

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.

 

and piss off *only* paying customers.

 

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.

 

Only spending time finding a solution for circumventing (and cleansing your system from) copy protection, which may or may not be as simple as finding a no-cd, is added on top of everything else you need to do to get the game working already. So it's affecting you right there.

 

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

 

This is just some company that's decided to make things more difficult than they need to be for no good reason.

 

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

 

It's not "how things are", as it's not a prevalent practice, and it's never been.

 

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.