Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Games
Topic: Even worse DRM coming...
started by: GORDON

Posted by GORDON on May 07 2008,09:24

Spore and Mass Effect will require an internet connection to be reauthenticated every 10 days.

< http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/05/07/1523242.shtml >

QUOTE

Commenter: "Sure, I have an always-on net connection but what happens if I don't play for 11 days and the moment I want to play my connection is down? Are you saying I'm not going to be able to play my perfectly legitimate purchased copy of the game, even the retail version, until I get permission?"
BioShock rep: "That is correct. And I would suggest that you contact EA Support the moment this happens (once you get your internet back) to report the issue. If there are people having problems with the system as designed, then Support needs to hear about it so they can help us evaluate it for the next game title."

"Hey customers... FUCK YOU!"

I'm now not getting Spore, and I was going to.

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2008,09:26

This is some fucking lame bullshit.

QUOTE

This will do nothing to stop piracy of course, but it will do a heck of a good job of stopping EA's new arch-enemy: people playing their single player games offline.

Posted by Alhazad on May 07 2008,09:44

What the FUCK.

Posted by WSGrundy on May 07 2008,12:20

That is bullshit but it doesn't bother me as much for spore and it does mass effect.

You need the game to get online at the start and during play to get the full effect so if it wants to see if I have a real copy while I am playing the game I can live with it. I would rather it didn't but I can live with it.

Mass Effect on the other hand doesn't need to get online for any reason. I guess that is just another reason for someone to pirate or use crack codes.

Posted by GORDON on May 07 2008,12:59

QUOTE

I'll take a stab.

Someone already posted where a customer asked (about Mass Effect) what happens if they have not played for 10+ days and don't have an internet connection available at the time they wish to play. The answer from the EA rep was "You don't get to play until you have an internet connection".

That's one of the bigger issues, but most of it is about principle and hassle.

Some of us bought a game called BioShock. It had an online activation that it didn't tell anyone about before hand. It also had a "You only get 2 activations per copy" that nobody knew about.
On launch day when people tried to activate, many got a failure due to the server load. Problem is, it failed AFTER transmitting it's unique ID. That's one of your two activations done. You try again, fail again due to server load... and you're done. You now cannot install your game legally. You must fark around with the company who made it for a week or so before they'll admit you actually did buy the game and give you another two tries to activate your game.
It was easier to download a crack... for my legally purchase game.
That's the important part. They made it so hard to use my legally purchased product legally... that it was easier to go get a pirated copy and leave my legally purchased copy sitting in a drawer.

The other thing with the "every 10 days or it doesn't run" model is that one day they're going to shut down the check server and now your game will never play again.
Which again means it'll be easier to get and use a pirate copy than a legal one.
They're encouraging pirating.

Posted by WSGrundy on May 07 2008,13:03

It has to be idiots suits that don't really have any idea what is going on bucause I can't see why the developers themselves wouldn't see this is lame.

Just like the FBI warnings at the beginning of movies or the trailers you can't skip the only people who are forced to watch them are the ones who leagaly bought the DVD the piraters edit that shit out.

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2008,16:59

& the big bizzes ask themselves why people continue to use illegal software. Cos you're forcing us to. Stop being dicks.

Posted by TPRJones on May 07 2008,23:51

Spore was the first game in a long time I was looking forward to. I even considered prepaying for it, which is something I've never done for any game.

Glad I didn't, as I will not be buying it now. If I play it it will be because I stole it. Even if every copy came with free steaks and blowjobs for life I wouldn't buy it if I had to activate it once, much less every time I play it.

EA loses another sale.

Posted by TheCatt on May 08 2008,05:04

Even when I buy games, I download the cracks for them. Wtf do I want to be burdened with that shit for?

Posted by Cakedaddy on May 08 2008,12:39

(TPRJones @ May 07 2008,18:51)

QUOTE

Even if every copy came with free steaks and blowjobs for life I wouldn't buy it if I had to activate it once, much less every time I play it.

Come on. $50 for steaks and blowjobs for life? I'd buy Deer Hunter 4 if it included that. Hell, I'd buy two. You know you're lying.

Posted by Malcolm on May 08 2008,12:46

(Cakedaddy @ May 08 2008,14:39)

QUOTE

Come on. $50 for steaks and blowjobs for life? I'd buy Deer Hunter 4 if it included that. Hell, I'd buy two. You know you're lying.

We never specified the condition or quality of said steaks & blowjobs.

Posted by WSGrundy on May 08 2008,14:14

I just don't get why they would put this stuff in spore. Almost everyone is going to connect to the internet each time they play the game anyway. So why not have what other online line games have and check a key or something then boot the person off if it isn't legit.

Is there really that big of a problem with people with no internet connections who are also going to be stealing spore? If you don't have the internet how do you even know about spore to begin with?

Posted by GORDON on May 08 2008,14:28

Oblivion IV had no DRM, and was the best selling PC game of... whatever year that was.

Low sales are not because of piracy, it's because a lot of games suck.

Every forum I hit on this topic is full of people saying, "I was gonna buy it, now I'm not." I wonder if EA is paying attention, and what they think about it.

Posted by Malcolm on May 08 2008,14:48

(GORDON @ May 08 2008,16:28)

QUOTE

Should be some handy script written to crawl a few forum threads on various forums, collect the posts, & e-mail them to a few select addresses.

Or perhaps one that posts automatically on the EA forums at regular intervals.

Posted by WSGrundy on May 08 2008,15:04

I wouldn't be surprised to see something change. EA changed the selling extra guns in Bad Company after there was a ton of complaints. The interest in Spore is about a billion that of Bad Company so they may feel the heat.

The other thing is what is the point of rechecking? If you bought the game and everything passed why would you then start playing a stolen copy?

Posted by GORDON on May 08 2008,15:37

Periodic checks to the mothership opens the door to anything.

"We noticed that you have an unregistered install of Office 2006 on your system. Microsoft is going to give us $20 to disable Spore because of it, so too bad for you. Maybe you give us $25 and we forget this conversation ever took place."

Posted by TPRJones on May 08 2008,23:48

What really pisses me off is just the wording of things, honestly. If they want to rent me the game for $50 for life (or as long as they keep renewing the key), fine. Then I'll consider it. But dont' tell me your going to sell me the thing and then make me check in for permission to play it when I want to. That's bullshit.

I don't have to call up OralB every time I want to brush my teeth. It's my damn toothbrush. That's the way selling things works.

Posted by thibodeaux on May 09 2008,08:52

< http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/5/9/ >

Posted by WSGrundy on May 09 2008,13:54

Bioware is removing the every 10 day re-authentication from Mass Effect. With Penny Arcade and every other major gaming site making fun of or bitching about this it is only a matter of time until Spore is changed too.

Now it is one time online activation and you can only install it on 3 PCs. I don't know if that is 3 total or like Bioshock where when you uninstall it you get a credit(If I understand that correctly). Still lame but not as.

Posted by WSGrundy on May 09 2008,14:00

Spore is now ditching it too somewhat. Now you just have to authenticate it when you first install the game and then if you use any of the online features.

Which is what they should have just done in the first place. Almost everyone who gets it is going to what to play online so why not just check if they have a legit copy before they download new content.

Posted by thibodeaux on May 09 2008,15:35

(WSGrundy @ May 07 2008,16:03)

QUOTE

It has to be idiots suits that don't really have any idea what is going on because I can't see why the developers themselves wouldn't see this is lame.

As a software developer (not games, though), I would say that it's 99.999% likely that the devs howled with RAGE that they were told to do this, and shook their heads and yelled "I told you so" as they removed the offending code.

If they even bothered to put it in for real.

Posted by WSGrundy on May 09 2008,15:48

(thibodeaux @ May 09 2008,15:35)

QUOTE

If they even bothered to put it in for real.

I'm starting to wonder too.

Could this be like asking for more then you know you will get in for a raise so that when they counter offer you actually get something you are happy with.

Could they have just wanted the current system to become the norm and asked for something outragous so that when they take it away we think we achived something and they got what they wanted all along? Of couse some of these people still seem like idiots and that plan may be asking a bit much.

Posted by Malcolm on May 10 2008,00:04

I think the managers are clueless enough that some code which was previously in there had to be killed.

Posted by GORDON on May 10 2008,09:25

Here's something official:

< http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/05/ea-loosens-spor.html >

I'm sort of amazed that EA caved. I thought them more arrogant than that.

Posted by Malcolm on May 10 2008,10:35

(GORDON @ May 10 2008,11:25)

QUOTE

Here's something official:

< http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/05/ea-loosens-spor.html >

I'm sort of amazed that EA caved. I thought them more arrogant than that.

I assure you, that dude that made that decision, it may be his last for awhile.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 08 2008,18:31

Spore is out, and it does include DRM that allows for three installs. Ever. If you uninstall, it doesn't give you back an install count. And if you make a change to your system, that's a count, too.

I rebuild and tweak my system on a monthly basis. No way will I pay $50 for a game I won't be able to use after about three months. I finally caved in to Steam, but this is beyond absurd.

I was absolutely ready to give EA my money, one might even say eager, but they conviced me to pirate Spore instead.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 08 2008,21:47

(TPRJones @ Sep. 08 2008,16:31)

QUOTE

Same here. I may have been more interested in spore then any other game ever but not going to pay for the securom shit. Of course they say that if you use up your 3 installs you can just call technical support and get more if you can prove that you bought the game but I shouldn't have to go through that shit to begin with.

Also there is a small protest taking place on amazon. People are giving the game a 1 star rating and complaining about the DRM. The number of 1 star reviews is about 100 an hour and the game has gone down to an overall rating of 1 star. Who knows if it will do anything. People bitched enough about the previous spore and mass effect DRM and it was changed.

1,166 Reviews
5 star: 2% (27)
4 star: 1% (20)
3 star: 0% (9)
2 star: 2% (27)
1 star: 92% (1,083)

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,05:30

I just can't see any reason for that. Even the "uninstall while connected to the internet/get one back" is reasonable compared to that.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,06:04

From elsehwere:

QUOTE

For once I find myself happy a game has DRM. I was going to buy Spore, until I heard of the DRM. Once that information became available it was off my to-buy list and I forgot about it.

Then a few days ago I am informed there's a cracked version available. I decide to see if it lived up to the hype and install it. Three hours later, I delete it out of boredom.

If it hadn't been for DRM, that would've been money out the window. There can be but one conclusion. DRM really is there for my benefit.

A lot of others are calling the game boring, as well.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2008,06:30

(WSGrundy @ Sep. 08 2008,19:47)

QUOTE

Who knows if it will do anything. People bitched enough about the previous spore and mass effect DRM and it was changed.

Don't count on it. While there has been no official statement about the DRM on Spore, EA had this to say yesterday on a related topic:

QUOTE

EA has now confirmed that it won't be dropping the system however and will include it in Red Alert 3, though the SecuROM system will be tweaked. Players will now be allowed five active installs of the game at any one time, the software only authenticate on first-run and you will not need the disc in the drive to play according to a discussion on the EA forums.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,06:34

I'll not be purchasing RA3 with that DRM.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 09 2008,06:53

Ditto. I didn't mind when EA would ban folks in their forums for using bad language, unlike other folks, because I understand the different age groups there, how they're running a business, and how they can't afford to lose folks or open themselves up to potential lawsuits/media slams for not controlling their servers.

I did, however, get a bit tweaked hearing about the working conditions their programmers experience. Still, that's those individuals' business. If they don't like it, they can stop doing annual updates for crap like Madden and go make something original for another publisher. Hell, they can do it themselves and distribute it via Steam.

This, however, will prevent me from buying anything "EA". I don't have to call Chrysler for permission to use my car after I refill it with gas three times. I don't call the bank to ask them if I can build a deck in my backyard. I don't call the meat market to see if I'm allowed to broil or grill the steaks I purchased. I certainly don't have to get Blockbuster's permission to watch a movie I rented more than once.

Why does EA think it has the right to limit the number of times I install their games? There are sooooo many examples of why one would need to install their game more than 3 times that I won't bother going into them. This policy is a spit in the face of the EA customer. They need to stop treating ALL of their customers as if they were ALL pirates.

I mean, let's follow the logic here:
Take 10 people and if one commits a crime, by EA's logic, we should put all 10 in jail.

EA has long been mocked for their executive decisions, this is yet more proof that the company cares little for it's consumers outside of what's in their pockets.

Fuck you EA.
(With a bit of tweaking, this could easy be a front page post Mr. Gordo.)

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2008,07:01

I think the problem, Leisher, is that 9 of the 10 people are committing a crime, not just one.

Software piracy on the PC is huge, especially with gamers. I don't like their solution either, but what should they do? Make it like consoles? Can only be played with the disc? Sure, once people figure out how to make PCs as unhackable as consoles.

Only release online games or stuff like Steam?

Leisher, your comparisons all deal with physical goods, which don't have the replication issues of software. Chrysler doesn't give a shit what you do with your car, because they already have their revenue. You can't just buy a car, then give a copy to your friend.

And yeah, companies tend to want money. funny that. Let's discuss capitalism some day.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,07:26

(TheCatt @ Sep. 09 2008,08:01)

QUOTE

Leisher, your comparisons all deal with physical goods, which don't have the replication issues of software. Chrysler doesn't give a shit what you do with your car, because they already have their revenue. You can't just buy a car, then give a copy to your friend.

Seems to me a better example would be Chrysler having a thumbprint-recognition drive next to the steering console that would guarantee you can never loan the car to your buddy for the night. Only the original purchaser of the car is licensed to drive it.

And I disagree with the "study" that claimed pc games are purated 10 times more than they are purchased, and that DRM is the way to fix that.

It never takes more than a day for a cracked game to be released, and a lot of people who do DL the game would never have bought it, anyway. DRM only hurts the suckers who legally purchased the game, and as such they are ensuring people who would otherwise buy the game, won't. Yes, I'm saying it, DRM is absolutely hurting the pc game industry more than it is helping.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,08:00

RIGHT THIS SECOND, Spore has about 100 2, 3, 4, and 5 star reviews, and over 1400 1-star reviews.

< http://www.amazon.com/Spore-P....&sr=8-1 >

Amazon UK has already deleted all of their 1-star reviews of this game.

"Getting Spored" is becoming a new colloquialism.

And EA, in a press release, has refered to everyone who doesn't like DRM as "petulant children." I can't find a link to EA's actual response, though, for what it's worth.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,08:10

Amazon is deleting 1-star reviews. There were over 1400 a few minutes ago, it is now around 1350.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2008,08:14

I think piracy hurts, a lot. A lot of people download cracked games to "try them out" then either get done/finished/bored with it, or figure "hey, i've already got it, why pay?" and don't bother spending the money. With consoles, if you want to try it you have to buy it first (or rent/borrow/etc)... either way, the publishers are doing much better.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 09 2008,08:28

QUOTE

I think the problem, Leisher, is that 9 of the 10 people are committing a crime, not just one.

I disagree with it being 9 out of 10. Such a figure would mean each game is selling 1 unit where it should be selling 10. Not to mention it'd indicate that the majority of gamers have the knowledge of where to find cracked games and how to get them working. Sometimes that process is such a clusterfuck it makes one wish they'd have just bought the game.

QUOTE

Software piracy on the PC is huge, especially with gamers. I don't like their solution either, but what should they do? Make it like consoles? Can only be played with the disc? Sure, once people figure out how to make PCs as unhackable as consoles.

Consoles can be hacked. You can buy an X-Box hard drive with a shitload of pirated games on it.

What I'd like is for them to not treat consumers like criminals. Granted, that might be an impossibility for them in this age of piracy, but even if they have to put some measures in place, they need to treat the customers with respect. That's something that is missing from EA's corporate attitude.

It's actually something that's missing in the relationship between consumers and producers in the gaming industry.

For example:
For every asshole who pirates something great like Half-Life, there's also a company who's making a piece of shit to fleece the public. Look at any licensed game based on a movie. They're usually complete ass and have one function, to make a buck, consumer be damned.

Speaking of Not to mention all the buggy games that are released. Using EA as an example, they're the assholes who released Ultima 9 as a buggy and unplayable piece of shit. If you sell products that are broken so badly that they cannot even be played, then perhaps you deserve to have customers steal your products rather than pay for them.

Let's be honest, nobody is monitoring the gaming industry, so the corporations are getting away with some bullshit on their consumer base. Buggy products are the norm, not the exception. Ditto for poorly made products.

Does that excuse the pirates? Of course not. However, I would argue that some pirates have been pushed into or further into their activities because they've paid $60 for a game that lasts 4 hours.

Back to the point, what can they do? I don't know, that's up to them. If I knew how to combat piracy, I wouldn't be typing this response to you, I'd be sitting on my own island drinking a jack and coke and wondering which Hollywood starlet I'd sleep with tonight.

Still, there has to be a better way than what they're doing which is to put all the burden on the consumer. The consumer is being forced to jump through all these hoops and like Gordon points out, the pirates don't.

I absolutely agree with him that these "anti-piracy" measures are only punishing normal consumers. Even worse, instead of protecting the industry, they're driving more consumers away.

Take a look at consoles. They're nothing more than a underpowered PC sans keyboard and mouse. Yet people, even people who own PCs, prefer them as a gaming console to the PC. The PC has more options for controls, speakers, seats, hardware, etc. yet folks want to play on the console. Sure, convenience has something to do with it because of the plug and play nature of consoles. However, if you ask people, they'll cite the ridiculous hoops one has to jump through to make a PC Game work. First there are system requirements. Then, you have to install the game (now appearing on consoles). You also need a key to get the game to properly install. Sometimes you need an internet connection to register. Now you can't install it more than 3 times?

Most people, as most of us here know, have no clue what version of Windows they're running let alone their processor type/speed, amount of RAM, etc. How are they supposed to deal with mounting requirements for PC knowledge?

I can drive a car, but that doesn't mean I know all the technical details of how everything works or what's under the hood.

Point being, they need to make things easier on the PC Gaming consumer, not more difficult. Punish the pirates, not Joe Schmoe who bought his copy of FarCry2 at Walmart.

QUOTE

Only release online games or stuff like Steam?

I'm a huge fan of brick and mortar stores as I like to hold a product and review it before purchase, however I've had nothing but good experiences with Steam thus far. Of course, that's Valve running things, not EA. What happens when an EA creates their own Steam-like service? If they run it like they currently run things, it won't be good.

QUOTE

True, but movies get pirated and I have yet to encounter a DVD I was only allowed to watch 3 times. I've yet to put a movie in that asks me to tell it what the third word is on page 6 of the DVD booklet.

QUOTE

And yeah, companies tend to want money. funny that. Let's discuss capitalism some day.

Don't get all holier than thou are. I'm well aware of the goal of any business, but that doesn't mean I have to think consumers need to bend over and take the company's ignorance up their ass.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2008,08:28

(GORDON @ Sep. 09 2008,11:10)

QUOTE

Amazon is deleting 1-star reviews. There were over 1400 a few minutes ago, it is now around 1350.

1374 out of 1471 reviews.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2008,08:30

QUOTE

This policy is a spit in the face of the EA customer. They need to stop treating ALL of their customers as if they were ALL pirates.

Not exactly. The major issue is the three times limit, yes? That's not about piracy, you could just as easily get the exact same results in terms of piracy from unlmited installs.

This three times thing is specifically meant to target the used games market. They're making it so that when you go to EB Games and buy Spore used, it may or may not actually work, and even if it does you may only have that one installation left. They have been very eager to get their share of the used games market, and this is their way of trying to shut it down, or at least get them to stop reselling used EA games. There is no other reasonable explanation for the installation limits.

Which, in my mind, makes this even worse. Forget pirates, which are at least breaking the law, they're putting in this shit that's fucking over their real customers just to curtail used game sales. WTF?

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 09 2008,08:34

QUOTE

Amazon is deleting 1-star reviews. There were over 1400 a few minutes ago, it is now around 1350.

As of 11:29 a.m. EST:

34 - 5 star reviews
22 - 4 star reviews
10 - 3 star reviews
31 - 2 star reviews
1,378 - 1 star reviews

QUOTE

A lot of people download cracked games to "try them out" then either get done/finished/bored with it, or figure "hey, i've already got it, why pay?" and don't bother spending the money.

We're rapidly heading to a point where individual users are going to be crucified as an example like the RIAA has done.

QUOTE

With consoles, if you want to try it you have to buy it first (or rent/borrow/etc)... either way, the publishers are doing much better.

I've heard it said that if game makers had their way, renting games would not be an option.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2008,08:37

QUOTE

The consumer is being forced to jump through all these hoops and like Gordon points out, the pirates don't.

It occurs to me that this is a bit similar to the gun control debate. If you limit access to guns, only criminals will have them. If you make your protection too restrictive, only criminals will play your game.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,08:39

(TheCatt @ Sep. 09 2008,09:28)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Sep. 09 2008,11:10)

QUOTE

Amazon is deleting 1-star reviews. There were over 1400 a few minutes ago, it is now around 1350.

1374 out of 1471 reviews.

The number of 1-stars is creeping back up, again.

1. New reviews are outrunning the amazon review/delete process.
2. Amazon is rethinking their decision to piss off the customers vs. pissing off EA
3. They just deleted reviews with profanity... something like that.

I dunno. This amazon/spore thing is fashionable today, let's see what it looks like tomorrow.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2008,08:41

I am waiting until I actually play it before doing an Amazon review, but I do know I'll rate it 1 star for the DRM issue.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,08:41

(Leisher @ Sep. 09 2008,09:34)

QUOTE

With consoles, if you want to try it you have to buy it first (or rent/borrow/etc)... either way, the publishers are doing much better.

I've heard it said that if game makers had their way, renting games would not be an option.

They already took it to court, and lost. Same with the used-game market... this DRM, by extension, is a continuation of that fight. Would you buy a PC game at a garage sale knowing it had a 3-install-limit DRM scheme?

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 09 2008,08:54

QUOTE

How long before someone sues them for this tactic as well?

Is it true that the DRM on this game:
1. Runs on your PC in the background?
2. You must call a number that isn't toll free to get your game "turned back on" if you install more than 3 times?
3. A few reviews mention that their multiple user IDs cannot play the game. Is this true? If so, there's an interesting concept...a game that doesn't allow multiple family members to play it under different accounts.

A person at Amazon makes a great point about the negative reviews there: "These aren't angry pirates! They've already cracked the game and are playing it without having to deal with the DRM."

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2008,09:04

(Leisher @ Sep. 09 2008,06:54)

QUOTE

Is it true that the DRM on this game:
1. Runs on your PC in the background?
2. You must call a number that isn't toll free to get your game "turned back on" if you install more than 3 times?
3. A few reviews mention that their multiple user IDs cannot play the game. Is this true? If so, there's an interesting concept...a game that doesn't allow multiple family members to play it under different accounts.

I've done some digging around, and the information I've come up with is as follows:

1) Not exactly, at least not as an ongoing process. There is a process running when the game is active watching for certain other programs and authorized to disable them. But once the game is stopped that process is also stopped. Supposedly.

2) You have to call EA customer service, which does have toll free numbers. But not toll free to the whole world. And there have been no promises, they say they'll handle it on a "case-by-case" basis. My guess is that they'll turn it on if you can prove you bought it as a new game from a known company. If you buy it used, or from someone on eBay, or from one of those lesser-known online stores, forget it. They'll figure you are a secondary market purchaser and tell you to go to hell.

3) That is correct, if you want to have different Spore IDs for your family you are supposed to buy multiple copies of the game. In this it is less like a normal game and more like WoW, where each copy of the game = one user account.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2008,10:04

TPR has a point about the used games, BUT since you can call and get more installs, there is a way around it.

They cannot prevent renting/resell, etc, because US law (and most standardized copyright law internationally) provides for first use rights (may have gotten the term a bit off). But basically, you retain ownership rights over items, even if they are copyrighted, meaning you can: resell, rent, destroy, etc. to your heart's content.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 09 2008,10:11

(Leisher @ Sep. 09 2008,06:34)

QUOTE

I've heard it said that if game makers had their way, renting games would not be an option.

Sony floated the idea of tying each game to the first console it is played in and not allowing it on any other system.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2008,10:45

(TheCatt @ Sep. 09 2008,08:04)

QUOTE

They cannot prevent renting/resell, etc, because US law (and most standardized copyright law internationally) provides for first use rights (may have gotten the term a bit off). But basically, you retain ownership rights over items, even if they are copyrighted, meaning you can: resell, rent, destroy, etc. to your heart's content.

I expect they will deny secondary market participants extra installations until such time as a court has ordered them to allow it.

So, who wants to be the test case and sue EA?

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2008,12:40

I do not expect that.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 09 2008,13:11

Fuck E.A. This shit is bordering on unreasonable.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2008,15:07

bordering?

In my opinion, they left unreasonable several exits back.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 09 2008,15:38

So... anyone have ideas what they should do to combat piracy?

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 09 2008,17:02

(TheCatt @ Sep. 09 2008,17:38)

QUOTE

So... anyone have ideas what they should do to combat piracy?

Until the day when a readable, uncopiable media comes into play, the best defense is not pissing off your client base & not having them hate you.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 09 2008,18:04

(TheCatt @ Sep. 09 2008,16:38)

QUOTE

So... anyone have ideas what they should do to combat piracy?

Stop trying, because it is an unwinnable war.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 09 2008,18:39

Copyright in the digital age is completely unenforcable without the willing participation of the public. Extreme good will is the only potentially reliable option at this point. You have to make them want to pay you because the like and respect you.

At least until someone has a flash of genius.

The only other option that I see is to just stop selling software and rent it as a service. This is the more likely short-term solution. All games will be online service, like MMOGs are now. But even then people will steal the client and backwards engineer their own servers if you piss them off enough.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 10 2008,04:47

If I were them, I'd say fuck PC gamers, and just make console games.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 10 2008,05:48

(TheCatt @ Sep. 10 2008,05:47)

QUOTE

If I were them, I'd say fuck PC gamers, and just make console games.

And then someone else would step in and fill the pc game niche. I have no problem if EA stops making PC games. I actually hope it happens.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 10 2008,06:21

QUOTE

If I were them, I'd say fuck PC gamers, and just make console games.

Again, console games are just as vulnerable.

I know it sounds really stupid, but the suggestion of good will isn't a bad idea. Valve and Blizzard are doing tremendous business and their customer relations are about as good as it gets.

I mean look at EA's track record:
-Bought out Bullfrog
-Bought out Westwood
-Bought out Origin
(I mention those because they were enormously popular in a time when PC Gaming was just starting up and they held the rights to many successful and popular series.)
-Ended and/or destroyed most of those popular series.
-Releases yearly updates to its sports franchises that include extremely little in the way of new content and rarely shows any improvement in gameplay for full price.
-Is the company that started the trend of buying the exclusive rights to a sports league's teams and players. They did this because they couldn't compete with the cheaper and superior product being made by competitors.
-Is the company trying to push the concept of "ala carte" for gaming. Essentially, they want to withhold content from full priced video games, then sell customers the additional content at an additional cost. Not as a full package either, but piece by piece. So, for example, a war game would mean each additional weapon would be an extra cost.
-Canceled many anticipated titles either being developed in house or at a company they purchased.
-Have released quite a few buggy games that were not only unplayable, but a couple that would actually damage customers' PCs.
-The Orange Box fiasco.

That's just a few examples, and I'm not shooting down their attempts to make a profit (rah rah capitalism), but for fuck's sake, you'd think someone at the company would have a clue that constantly treating your consumers like shit might generate a negative backlash.

Oh, and just a little FYI, before we completely discount online distribution systems like Steam, know that it's already been discussed that consoles are going to move to online distribution for their games as well. This system has been discussed as both an alternative and PRIMARY distribution method.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 10 2008,06:48

Current on amazon:

1,986 Reviews
5 star: 2% (51)
4 star: 1% (38)
3 star: 0% (18)
2 star: 2% (47)
1 star: 92% (1,832)

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 10 2008,07:09

QUOTE

I know it sounds really stupid, but the suggestion of good will isn't a bad idea.

Gee, thanks.

But I was completely serious. There are NO technological gimicks that will stop software piracy. There are very few that actually slow it down at all, and every one of those is far more of an annoyance to the legitimate customers than any of the pirates.

At this point the only defense against rampant piracy is the good will of your customers. There is NO other reasonably effective possiblity currently available. That's not to say that a techonological solution won't be worked up later, but there's nothing even close available now.

Right now software distributors are - as my grandfather would say - like cats selling bones at a dog show. They better make those dogs really like those bones and not want to eat them instead if they expect to survive the show.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 10 2008,07:20

This isn't even a new issue. It's been happening at lest 20 years, and yet people are still making pc games... the difference it, never before has it been so much harder to play a game as a paying customer than as a pirate.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 10 2008,07:22

(Leisher @ Sep. 10 2008,09:21)

QUOTE

If I were them, I'd say fuck PC gamers, and just make console games.

Again, console games are just as vulnerable.

Prove it. Because I'd love to know how to play copied games on my Wii or XBox 360.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 10 2008,07:23

(TPRJones @ Sep. 10 2008,10:09)

QUOTE

I know it sounds really stupid, but the suggestion of good will isn't a bad idea.

Gee, thanks.

Show me how to pirate games on the Wii, XBox 360, and PS3 then.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 10 2008,09:36

I haven't done it for those systems because I'm too cheap to own one. Except the Wii, and there's nothing on it worth pirating. I would lay odds that a little google searching would come up with some interesting results, though.

I did have my old PS2 modded to play copied games, though. Does that count for anything?

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 10 2008,13:18

I guarantee it's possible. Just a matter of how badly you wanna do it.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 10 2008,14:09

(Malcolm @ Sep. 10 2008,16:18)

QUOTE

I guarantee it's possible. Just a matter of how badly you wanna do it.

Which would disprove

QUOTE

Again, console games are just as vulnerable.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 10 2008,14:39

Indeed they aren't "just" as vulnerable, in the sense that all you have to do now for pirated PC games is fire up bittorrent. It's more along the lines of cracking copyright on the C64, where it was certainly doable but took a little effort. The difference being that on the C64 you had to play around with software like Fasthack, but on consoles you have to install a quick hardware hack.

But it's still easier to play copied games on a console than it is to properly install and run a legitimate copy of a game on a PC that has borked copy protection on it.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 10 2008,15:41

(GORDON @ Sep. 09 2008,04:34)

QUOTE

I'll not be purchasing RA3 with that DRM.

EA is changing things for Red Alert 3. The game will still contain SecuROM, EA has changed the maximum number of installs from 3 to 5 and promises to "never re-authenticate an installation online after the first launch."

Nothing has been said about Spore yet but it still has securom which pisses me off.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 10 2008,16:38

Until the holy grail of media comes out, piracy will always be a possibility. Just like till the key to immortality is discovered, death is always a possibility. Just try not to piss off enough people so that the sheer numbers kill you.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 10 2008,16:53

I think you have to control hardware before you can keep people from using it however they see fit. A sort of Big Brother that will disallow you from doing illegal things stemming from incorrect thoughts.

It would probably work at Apple, depending on how the current lawsuit goes with the guys selling Apple-compatible PC's. Apple is suing them, of course.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 10 2008,18:31

As I understand it, piracy on Apple is harder. Something about automatic product updates and stuff.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 11 2008,07:14

I used to have a friend who had binder after binder of PC games, console games, and movies all on burned CDs and DVDs.

I have been offered on numerous occasions to have my console of choice altered to run pirated console discs.

You can purchase hard drives for certain consoles that contain a ton of pirated games. This is one of the reasons console makers didn't want to include hard drives in this generation and why they may not in the future.

The only difference between console piracy and PC piracy is ease of access. Right now the PC pirates have an advantage with google and their "consumers" actually surfing their site with the machine they want to get stuff for. Console folks, particularly the kiddies, don't have the same luxury.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 11 2008,08:15

As of right now, Amazon Spore reviews:

2,133 Reviews
5 star: 2% (57)
4 star: 1% (42)
3 star: 0% (21)
2 star: 2% (52)
1 star: 91% (1,961)

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 11 2008,08:24

(Leisher @ Sep. 11 2008,10:14)

QUOTE

The only difference between console piracy and PC piracy is ease of access. Right now the PC pirates have an advantage with google and their "consumers" actually surfing their site with the machine they want to get stuff for. Console folks, particularly the kiddies, don't have the same luxury.

So... this statement is not correct:

QUOTE

Again, console games are just as vulnerable.

In order to get something modded, you have to a) pay for it and b) be willing to risk losing that console. In order to run pirated games on a PC you have to a)download them.

That is vastly different.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 11 2008,11:45

Like I said Catt, access. They're still readily available, thus just as vulnerable.

Besides, PC pirating comes with "obstacles" as well.
A) You have to pay for an internet connection if you're downloading anything. Consoles folks don't. What's $100-200 for a console hard drive full of games versus months of internet access payments?
B) It's a lot easier to get caught downloading pirated software than it is to buy a hard drive or a disc from a friend or co-worker. Sure, they could roll on you, but law enforcement typically isn't looking for you or them, they're looking for the folks who do the mass distribution, as that big pirating ring here in the U.S. recently discovered.
C) There are viruses to content with.
D) It takes more knowledge to download a pirated PC game than to play pirated console games.

So I stand by my statement as being correct, I just think we're talking semantics.

Either way, there are other factors that must be taken into account when thinking of dropping development for PC Games. Examples:
-Speculation that this may have been the last generation of consoles.
-Development costs on the PC being far cheaper (depending on certain factors obviously) on average.
-No license fees for developer kits to develop a game for the PC.
-The fact that consoles are finding it harder to disguise the fact that they're PCs.
-New technology/development paths being investigated that would make PCs more console-like in the way they play games.

And yeah, I fully concede that some of those examples are future items, but they still must be considered in the overall big picture of whether or not to focus one's company on PC or console development.

One final example is the Orange Box. It's a MONSTER hit, but it never wouldn't made the impact it did if it were a console only release. Some genres and story telling technologies play better on one platform over another.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 11 2008,11:57

(Leisher @ Sep. 11 2008,14:45)

QUOTE

Like I said Catt, access. They're still readily available, thus just as vulnerable.

That's bullshit.

They aren't as vulnerable if people aren't willing to do it.

QUOTE

Besides, PC pirating comes with "obstacles" as well.
A) You have to pay for an internet connection if you're downloading anything. Consoles folks don't. What's $100-200 for a console hard drive full of games versus months of internet access payments?

People already have the internet, they aren't paying for it just to get games.

QUOTE

B) It's a lot easier to get caught downloading pirated software than it is to buy a hard drive or a disc from a friend or co-worker. Sure, they could roll on you, but law enforcement typically isn't looking for you or them, they're looking for the folks who do the mass distribution, as that big pirating ring here in the U.S. recently discovered.

Neither happens in significant numbers.

QUOTE

D) It takes more knowledge to download a pirated PC game than to play pirated console games.

Playing pirated PCs games was easy. I've no clue how to play pirated Wii/XBox 360 games. I've even tried looking.

Consoles are way more secure, and have much lower piracy rates, and are not nearly as vulnerable to piracy.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 11 2008,13:26

Maybe it's just my area or folks I know, but I've always known how to get pirated console games.

I also know the process is much easier than grabbing a PC game due to the hard drives (speaking in terms of knowledge and time only), that's what I'm basing my statement on. I'm not saying consoles games are stolen more often, I'm just saying they're as vulnerable.

Whether or not such vulnerability or options to pirate are marketed well has nothing to do with my point.

But I absolutely, positively agree that currently more PC games are being pirated.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 11 2008,14:01

I'd like to say again that I absolutely, positively hope EA gets out of the PC game business.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 11 2008,14:17

(GORDON @ Sep. 11 2008,16:01)

QUOTE

I'd like to say again that I absolutely, positively hope EA gets out of the PC game business.

I'd settle for their current crop of upper management resigning/quitting/getting replaced. & kill middle management, just for good measure.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 11 2008,14:34

(Leisher @ Sep. 11 2008,16:26)

QUOTE

I still think that the fact that you have to mod a console makes them less vulnerable.

Also, I'd take the higher % of pirating on PCs to indicate that they are more vulnerable.

But... whatever.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 11 2008,15:02

Currently, it's easier to use pirated shyte on a PC. You have a rather large amount of control over your PC & its hardware. Consoles are more controlled. But they're ultimately retarded PCs, which means that it might take soldering & other low-level hacks, but you can crack 'em.

Walk into the computer/electronics club of any local college. One of the regulars'll be able to mod whatever the fuck you want. Or at least know someone who can.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2008,13:53

1. < The Spore backlash has EA easing up on the DRM for Red Alert 3. > No CD in the drive is needed to play, and 5 installs. Still bullshit, and I won't be buying it. I'm going to be installing Homeworld/Homeworld 2 again, soon. Good thing there's no DRM to stop me.

2. < More peeps are speculating that EA is trying to kill the used game market with this DRM. > Like I said a while back.

I wish I'd known Bioshock had DRM before I bought it.

From now on, if you review a game in this forum, state whether or not the game has DRM, and how it limits you.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 14 2008,15:04

(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2008,11:53)

QUOTE

I wish I'd known Bioshock had DRM before I bought it.

At the time you bought it it did have it but as of now all DRM has been removed from Bioshock.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2008,15:07

(WSGrundy @ Sep. 14 2008,16:04)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2008,11:53)

QUOTE

I wish I'd known Bioshock had DRM before I bought it.

At the time you bought it it did have it but as of now all DRM has been removed from Bioshock.

In 10 years when I go to reload it for the 4th time, will it allow me to if their patch servers are unavailable to tell it to disable DRM? Serious question.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 14 2008,22:04

(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2008,13:07)

QUOTE

(WSGrundy @ Sep. 14 2008,16:04)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2008,11:53)

QUOTE

I wish I'd known Bioshock had DRM before I bought it.

At the time you bought it it did have it but as of now all DRM has been removed from Bioshock.

In 10 years when I go to reload it for the 4th time, will it allow me to if their patch servers are unavailable to tell it to disable DRM? Serious question.

Honestly I didn't read the article all the way through but I got the impression that they aren't keep tracking of number of installs and that the DRM has been removed.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 15 2008,11:35

< Spore may be the most pirated game of all time. >

Crysis the best selling game of the year so far has been pirated less since its release in 2007 then Spore has since its release.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 15 2008,11:44

This logic is mind-boggling.

QUOTE

But in the face of this backlash, EA remains undeterred. "EA has not changed our basic DRM copy protection system," said corporate communications manager Mariam Sughayer to Forbes. "We simply changed the copy protection method from using the physical media, which requires authentication every time you play the game by requiring a disc in the drive, to one which uses a one-time online authentication." Sughayer also said that according to EA's data, less than 25 percent of users install their games more than once, and less than 1 percent attempt to install them more than three times.

The message is even if you pay for their product, if you're in a small enough minority, fuck you. You're buying the right to use their software.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 15 2008,11:56

I read peeps talking about DLing Spore just on principle, just to send a message.

But I saw other peeps, on the same side of the argument, saying they don't even want to DL it, in order to send a message.

So I dunno.

I personally will not be purchasing nor DLing it. Same with RA3.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 15 2008,13:47

I saw Spore at Best Buy today and thought "The wife would love this, too bad I won't buy it for her because of the DRM."

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 16 2008,19:51

Spore DRM is changing a little bit. They are going to release a patch which did the bioshock thing and let you get back a install credit if you uninstall the game. So you won't be able to have it installed on more then 3 machines at one time but you will be able to install it more then 3 times if you want or have to.

Still bullshit but funny to see them trying to change things since people are pissed off.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 16 2008,20:15

Well, at least it stopped the pirates.

Oh wait, no it didn't. It is the used game market they are trying to kill.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 16 2008,21:00

(WSGrundy @ Sep. 16 2008,17:51)

QUOTE

Spore DRM is changing a little bit. They are going to release a patch which did the bioshock thing and let you get back a install credit if you uninstall the game.

If it doesn't write the patch to the physical disks as a permemant change (which of course it can't), then I don't trust them to keep it that way. They could change their mind again at any time. No thanks, I do not trust EA in the slightest.

When it drops to $20 I'll consider it. At that price the amount of entertainment I would expect to get from it for as long as they decide to let me play it will be worth it. But for $60 I expect to have a game I can play when and how I want to play it without asking permission first.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 17 2008,11:28

Peeps are starting to say "we" should be taking our complaints to the FTC. Don't know why I didn't think of that.

< https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/ >

QUOTE

"Be sure to compare this to the Sony rootkit scandal, and mention that information on SecuROM does not appear in the Spore EULA, that SecuROM does not contain an uninstaller, and that its inclusion is not noted on the box."

The FTC's previous ruling against Sony can by found here:
< http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/01/sony.shtm >

"Installations of secret software that create security risks are intrusive and unlawful," said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. "Consumers' computers belong to them, and companies must adequately disclose unexpected limitations on the customary use of their products so consumers can make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase and install that content."

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 17 2008,11:57

May their foulness burn in hell, next to Sony.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 18 2008,19:46

You can now have multiple accounts on one game instead of just one.

I don't understand why they keep backing down on things if it does such a good job and stopping pirates.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Sep. 18 2008,19:49

So what's the deal with spore? I thought it was an online game only. Month fees and all. So who cares if people steal it? You still have to pay to play, no?

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 18 2008,21:29

I don't think it's monthly. I could be wrong though.

Anyone know?

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 19 2008,08:00

(Cakedaddy @ Sep. 18 2008,17:49)

QUOTE

So what's the deal with spore? I thought it was an online game only. Month fees and all. So who cares if people steal it? You still have to pay to play, no?

No online and no monthly fees.

A friend got it so I stopped by and checked it out. What I played kicked some ass but it was much more of a casual game then I thought it would be coming from someone who made simcity.

The beginning stages were a lot of fun and since there was a group of us there we were all making suggestions and everyone was cracking up, but the middle stage where we stopped was pretty shallow and not very complex.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2008,14:26

Catt: Console piracy apparently happens often enough that Activision is going after the individual perpetrators.

< http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15549 >

But I don't use consoles, because I like richer gaming experiences.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2008,14:57

QUOTE

Activision seeks $30,000 to $150,000 in damages "for each infringement of each copyrighted videogame." After looking into the issue, GamePolitics uncovered six other instances of piracy-related Activision lawsuits. Settlements in those cases ranged from $1,000 to $100,000, the site says, adding that five of the six defendants lacked representation.

Why haven't more tongues been wagging about these cases? Apparently, the settlements forbid defendants from making "any public statements that are inconsistent with any term of this Stipulation to Judgment and Permanent Injunction."

This is pathetic. Activision has just sunk to Sony & RIAA status.

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 20 2008,15:58

Not quite:

QUOTE

The lawsuits may not be related to file sharing. GamePolitics has received a message from one of Activision's attorneys, who says his law firm has "never filed any litigation against a file-sharer on behalf of Activision."

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2008,19:37

(TheCatt @ Sep. 20 2008,17:58)

QUOTE

Not quite:

QUOTE

So, it's not the filesharing they've got a problem w\, it's the end result, looks like. While it's good & all that they're making that slight distinction, these sort of draconian bullshit penalties don't sit well w\ me. I'd like to know how Activision targets which folk they sue next for this type of thing.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 30 2008,06:23

Here, < this guy > is saying what I was trying to say before, about the good will of your customers being essential. Only with < more words >.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 01 2008,20:18

"Spore Galactic Edition" has been released. Same reviews as the regular version: 1.5 stars out of 5. Only 5% of the number of reviews of the basic version, but DRM is still an issue.

< http://www.amazon.com/Spore-G....&sr=8-2 >

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2008,05:41

Fallout 3 DRM will be a disk check.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 03 2008,06:01

That's okay. I mean I'll still download a crack to stop that, because I have no intention of getting up and going over and swapping out disks whenever I want to play different games, like they have some sort of DRM-gun pointed at my feet saying "Dance customer monkey, dance!" But it won't stop me from buying it.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2008,06:34

Yeah, that's why I was pointing it out.

Disk checks I can live with, even without a crack.

The shit EA is doing? Totally unacceptable.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2008,06:50

Disk checks........ are ok. I remember a game I used to play back in '93... "Empire." The copy protection was, "In the manual, on page 47, type in the 14th word on the page."

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 03 2008,07:11

I remember the wheels from way back in the day.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2008,07:59

I almost mentioned the code wheels... D&D games from SSI were good for that. I'm pretty sure I still have a few.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 03 2008,08:14

Those I hated. When I open a boxed game, the second step is to throw away anything in the box that isn't a) a game disk or b) kinda cool. Code wheels and manuals are neither.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2008,08:34

Heathen.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2008,10:09

Got a code wheel. For some reason, my IBM version of Pool of Radiance disagrees w\ it, though.

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 03 2008,11:12

OMG, I remember code wheels and (word 10, page 47 of manual) and all that crap.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 13 2008,19:02

Although not technically about games, it clearly applies to this thread.