DRM schemes in new EA titles are actually not bad
noman
things that result due to DRM:
1) Keeping the disc in drive - For someone like me who gets 10-20
minute gaming sessions, a minute or two spent on locating the DVD is a
big chunk of that time. No-CD hacks exist but I try to avoid them
2) Online activations that tie the game to an account without
possibility to de-register (Steam, Impulse/Stardock) - I like to have
control on when I sell a game, or give it to a friend or family member.
Now, Good Old Games (http://www.gog.com) is pretty much the best place
to buy PC games, simply because there's no copy protection at all.
Lately though Electronic Arts titles are coming out with a lot less
annoying protection scheme.
First of all, the games can be activated and played simultaneously on
more than one PC. Once a PC is authorized, internet connection is not
required, neither the disc is needed. At any time, the PC can be
deauthorized (or the game uninstalled) and the game sold or given to
others. That takes care of two of my biggest complaints that I wrote
earlier.
Even if you accidentally delete the game without following the
uninstall route, EA has a standalone tool that can revoke the license.
Only in case, of hard-disk wipeout, would you lose the license (out of
usually five possible ones) that can then be recovered through other
methods. These games (Mirror's Edge, Burnout Paradise) have the
"Deauthorize" selection in the right-click menu in Games folder, which
makes it very easy to quickly go through these games (without
uninstalling them) in case you are getting ready for installing a new
OS.
EA have made a lot of good moves lately, and the improvements to their
DRM methods are worth mentioning.
My 2�
--
Noman
Colin B.
Quite simply, EA's steps are Not Good Enough.
> 1) Keeping the disc in drive - For someone like me who gets 10-20
> minute gaming sessions, a minute or two spent on locating the DVD is a
> big chunk of that time. No-CD hacks exist but I try to avoid them
Agreed. This was only acceptable when CDs (or DVDs) were huge compared to
available drive space, and the disc was actually needed for data during
the game. Those days are long gone.
> 2) Online activations
Stop right there.
If I have to activate a game, then I haven't bought it--I've licensed it,
subject to the continuity and whim of the company I licensed it from.
Not Acceptable.
Downloaded games can be activated in one way that I find acceptable: If
I can download it without paying (i.e. a demo or the like) and then pay
for an activation code, then send me the code and I'll unlock it on my
computer. Everyone else operates like this, why not the game industry?
Once I have that code, I should own a copy of that game. I can install
it on my computer, destroy my computer, and reinstall it again as much
as I want, WITHOUT having to ever go online to register, deregister,
activate, deactivate, revoke, or otherwise have the (hopefully still
alive, hopefully still paying attention) company 'bless' the game.
> EA have made a lot of good moves lately, and the improvements to their
> DRM methods are worth mentioning.
The only meaningful improvement to DRM is to turf it. You won't eliminate
serious piracy with DRM, just dissuade casual copiers from buying your
products. Companies have to plan for piracy as an inevitability, and build
that into their financial model.
Colin
Benjamin Gawert
> The only meaningful improvement to DRM is to turf it. You won't eliminate
> serious piracy with DRM, just dissuade casual copiers from buying your
> products. Companies have to plan for piracy as an inevitability, and build
> that into their financial model.
DRM is not about piracy, it is about to move away from a physically sold
media which can be used in an unlimited way and sold again any time, to
a online-distributed rental model that allows to charge depending on the
playtime or for a certain period which they allow you to run the game.
The game industry has expressed many times that they don't like physical
media, because they can be copied, because the industry doesn't benefit
from second hand sales, and because it is a one-off model. They already
indicated very clearly that "new subscription models" are what they are
aiming at.
Benjamin
Colin B.
> * Colin B.:
>
>> The only meaningful improvement to DRM is to turf it. You won't eliminate
>> serious piracy with DRM, just dissuade casual copiers from buying your
>> products. Companies have to plan for piracy as an inevitability, and build
>> that into their financial model.
>
Well, yes it is. You make that clear a few lines down.
However, you first point out that it's not _exclusively_ about piracy,
and I'll grant you that.
> ...it is about to move away from a physically sold
> media which can be used in an unlimited way and sold again any time, to
> a online-distributed rental model that allows to charge depending on the
> playtime or for a certain period which they allow you to run the game.
Ah. An online rental model--licensing, in other words.
It may work for some people in some cases, but I think the majority of
people are going to want to buy a game. Maybe it's a downloaded game and
maybe it's a box, but many won't want to rent it for two weeks and then
give it away.
Now the TV companies have figured out this model almost perfectly, with
Video-On-Demand. However, that doesn't translate perfectly to computers
because streaming media is exactly that--a stream. You can jump back and
forth in it, but nothing has to be on your end, except the signal
actually being shown at the moment. Games, on the other hand, need to
install at least partly to your computer, and that's a lot more complex,
invasive, and intricate.
But still, it's a difficulty--not a show-stopper. Games should be smart
enough to poll the computer for hardware (with your permission), and
then do a completely self-contained install--except for desktop icons. Hell,
it wouldn't matter if the scrawled junk across half of the filesystem--as
long as they cleaned up after themselves properly. (meaning we need a
better uninstaller for Windows).
Is this DRM? I suppose so--but separating 'access rights' from the
presence of the software on your computer is the core problem. Make
the download and installation the licensing.
> The game industry has expressed many times that they don't like physical
> media, because they can be copied...
(piracy!)
> because the industry doesn't benefit from second hand sales...
(piracy! So they claim. Nobody else on the planet benefits from
second-hand sales, they can suck it up.)
> and because it is a one-off model.
So what?
> They already
> indicated very clearly that "new subscription models" are what they are
> aiming at.
Yep, I'm sure it is. But that doesn't mean it's a smart idea, or that
they're doing it for smart reasons.
Sheldon England
>
> Ah. An online rental model--licensing, in other words.
Software has always been license only.
Always.
Games, word processors, image editors, spreadsheets, video editing -- if
it is software you cannot ever buy it, you can only obtain a license for
use.
Can you quote any single piece of software purchase/EULA/Activation text
that specifically says otherwise?
I'm not saying I like it ... but I'm not pretending it's something it
isn't.
- Sheldon
Mike S.
<sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Games, word processors, image editors, spreadsheets, video editing -- if
>it is software you cannot ever buy it, you can only obtain a license for
>use.
>
>Can you quote any single piece of software purchase/EULA/Activation text
>that specifically says otherwise?
>
>I'm not saying I like it ... but I'm not pretending it's something it
>isn't.
You own the media the game came on. With that one copy that you do
indeed own, you can sell it, or give it away. With the media gone in
the 'all online model', only now does licensing vs owning come into
play. The same argument is now happening with books as well thanks to
the success of the Kindle.
Sheldon England
>
> You own the media the game came on. With that one copy that you do
> indeed own, you can sell it, or give it away.
When you buy [the software] on a CD (for example), the physical CD is
[the media]. You may indeed own [the media] but you still only have a
"license to use" [the software]. Unless you have made other arrangements
with the licensor, you are in violation of the license if you have
resold or loaned [the software] to anyone else.
The only way to resell or loan [the media] would be to somehow
blank/erase the CD to remove [the software] and then you are free to
sell/loan [the media] to someone else.
Still not saying I like it ... but this is the way it has always been
with software.
Always.
- Sheldon
David Lamb
> Colin B. wrote:
>>
>> Ah. An online rental model--licensing, in other words.
>
> Software has always been license only.
>
> Always.
Interestingly, it wasn't originally for "DRM" purposes, but to pretend
delivery of software was payment for a "service" rather than a
"product", exactly so they could avoid liability laws. We let them get
away with it because we decided we'd rather have buggy software than put
99% of the vendors out of business.
Sometimes I think we should have considered it evolution in action; had
today's industry been built on the other 1%, I think we might all be
better off.
Mike S.
<sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
>The only way to resell or loan [the media] would be to somehow
>blank/erase the CD to remove [the software] and then you are free to
>sell/loan [the media] to someone else.
This is not true in the USA. Under 'Fair Use' laws, I have the *legal
right* to sell or loan my copy of a game. Just as I have the legal
right to sell or loan my copy of a book. *My copy* (which you can
think of as my copy of the license if you want to) is mine to do with
as I please, as it should be. When I buy a game online, I am still
buying exactly what I have always been buying. My copy of a license. I
should be able to do exactly the same thing with my copy of the
license whether I bought it online digitally, or offline in a retail
box on a shiny disc. Fair Use should apply in both cases.
KCB
"Colin B." <cbi...@somewhereelse.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:hcck4b$nc5$1...@aioe.org...
So, I wonder how that last one would go... Might we then be paying $250 per
game? Of course, there would be no DRM to worry about.
noman
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure noman <no_...@zzzyahoo.yycom>
> wrote:
>
> > 2) Online activations
>
> Stop right there.
>
> If I have to activate a game, then I haven't bought it--I've licensed
> it, subject to the continuity and whim of the company I licensed it
> from. Not Acceptable.
I don't like online activations either, but if there has to be one,
then EA's current implementation is not bad. I am free to sell the game
or
give it as a gift to anyone without any problems. Of course EA can
decide to not let me revoke a license, but that has smaller chance of
happening than my DVD physical media going bad.
It also allows me to have simultaneous play sessions on different PCs,
which is only somewhat doable with disc-based copy protection.
Of course, DRM implementations like Steam allow none of that.
> > EA have made a lot of good moves lately, and the improvements to
> > their DRM methods are worth mentioning.
>
> The only meaningful improvement to DRM is to turf it. You won't
> eliminate serious piracy with DRM, just dissuade casual copiers from
> buying your products. Companies have to plan for piracy as an
> inevitability, and build that into their financial model.
For twenty years, I have seen different copy protection schemes, so I
doubt it'll suddenly go away. The EA model currently offers less
hassles than disc-based protections, code-wheels or steam-like account
tie-in and likes.
--
Noman
Mike S.
wrote:
>Actually, what you're talking about is Doctrine of First Sale, not Fair Use.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
>
>"Fair Use" is about whether you may redistribute a portion of someone's
>copyrighted material for a variety of explicitly defined purposes, such as
>educational materials or in a review or satire piece.
Thank you for the correction.
Nick E. Stephans
When I buy through Steam, I own the game instead of a piece of shit
hunk of plastic. Physical media wears out over time, as many folks
have discovered about their CD music collection from the 80s.
In theory, something could take away Steam at some point, but like
everything else that dies (including usenet and geocities), the
writing will be on the wall for a very long time before that happens,
serving as a 5-10 year warning not to buy games over Steam (and
likewise, nobody will be distributing new games on Steam so it's not
as if we'll be pumping in money until the final hour).
And even if it does, the old games we used to play will be bought
out/distributed on gametap or some similar retro gaming service.
Benjamin Gawert
> Software has always been license only.
>
> Always.
Nope.
> Games, word processors, image editors, spreadsheets, video editing -- if
> it is software you cannot ever buy it, you can only obtain a license for
> use.
You can. Maybe not in the US, but in countries like Germany most
standard software is purchased and not licensed.
> Can you quote any single piece of software purchase/EULA/Activation text
> that specifically says otherwise?
Again, the EULA might be relevant in the US, in other countries it
usually isn't.
Benjamin
CJM
"Sheldon England" <sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:hccptr$cfa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Games, word processors, image editors, spreadsheets, video editing -- if
> it is software you cannot ever buy it, you can only obtain a license for
> use.
>
You were traditionally purchasing a perpetual license that allowed you to
use the software with relative freedom. Current DRM often tries to limit the
number of machines which you can install it on, and often other restrictions
besides.
And publishers are itching to go further still... to move from perpetual
licenses to rental arrangements; �xx per month or year to continue using the
software. Why charge �25 per game if you can get away with �10 -�15 per
month?
> Can you quote any single piece of software purchase/EULA/Activation text
> that specifically says otherwise?
>
Yeah several actually - I have purchase a number of items of software that
grants me rights to the actual software (including code and the option to
re-sell). But clearly these are niche products - I do take your point.
CJM
"Nick E. Stephans" <wg1...@ofacemail.com> wrote in message
news:2pmke557fcc1assjh...@4ax.com...
>
> When I buy through Steam, I own the game instead of a piece of shit
> hunk of plastic. Physical media wears out over time, as many folks
> have discovered about their CD music collection from the 80s.
>
No you don't. You own the right to play a game, that they will allow you to
download from their servers. You own nothing apart from the license in
perpetuity.
However, good as steam is, you don't have the capability to sell on to other
people, as you should be able to according to the First Sale (or Exhaustion)
Doctrine.
Colin B.
> "Colin B." <cbi...@somewhereelse.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:hcck4b$nc5$1...@aioe.org...
>> The only meaningful improvement to DRM is to turf it. You won't eliminate
>> serious piracy with DRM, just dissuade casual copiers from buying your
>> products. Companies have to plan for piracy as an inevitability, and build
>> that into their financial model.
>
> So, I wonder how that last one would go... Might we then be paying $250 per
> game? Of course, there would be no DRM to worry about.
Well since game companies (a) don't have a coherent or effective DRM
strategy yet, but (b) are making a profit selling games at $50-$80, one
might conjecture that they've already done it. In fact, if they don't
have _accurate_ figures on how much money they lose to piracy, I'd be very
surprised.
Look, it's like the credit card industry. Credit card fraud costs roughly
a billion dollars a year. The credit card companies know this, but they
stay in business because they can factor it into their charges, rates,
and business model. This is how you run a business--know and manage your
costs. If you own a restaurant, you have to expect that if you're a certain
size, some (known) percentage of your staff will steal from you. You do
what you can to prevent it (treat your employees well, have them cross-
count, etc.) but when it happens, even if you catch the employee, you're
not going to get all of your money back. Some customers will walk out
without paying. If it costs you $2000 year (random number for illustrative
purposes only), do you buy a $50k security system? Do you hire a guard to
stand at the front door and make people show their receipts (as they do in
Costco)? Do you raise prices because you weren't planning for it, or do
you plan for it from the beginning? After five years in business, if you're
showing a profit, you've obviously calculated those costs into your budget,
whether or not it's a separate line-item.
Ditto with piracy and DRM. Companies need to know how to cope with
unstoppable losses (reducible yes, but not they can't be eliminated
completely), and they also understand that pissing off legitimate customers
is not a financially sustainable way of reducing loss costs.
Colin
noman
>
> When I buy through Steam, I own the game instead of a piece of shit
> hunk of plastic. Physical media wears out over time, as many folks
> have discovered about their CD music collection from the 80s.
I actually agree with you about how any fears about Steam imploding in
future aren't that different from issues resulting from bad physical
media, compatibility issues etc.
However, my post was about comparing EA's DRM to other methods.
Steam is lot more restrictive than EA's DRM. First of all, you can't
remove a game from an account. If you have to sell a game purchased
through Steam or give it to someone, you have to give account
information as well. Also while Steam allows you to have games set up
on different PCs, you can run the game only from one PC at a time.
EA's DRM allows you to deauthorize a game and they also make it very
easy to do it. That takes care of the sale/gift issue. They also allow
you to install the game on multiple PCs and have simultaneous
single-player sessions.
--
Noman
Tim Northover
>
> Steam is lot more restrictive than EA's DRM. First of all, you can't
> remove a game from an account. If you have to sell a game purchased
> through Steam or give it to someone, you have to give account
> information as well. Also while Steam allows you to have games set up
> on different PCs, you can run the game only from one PC at a time.
For how I use games EA gets in my way far more than steam (I'm not happy
about either). I keep windows around solely for games, so just reinstall
it when things start getting odd. Even before that when disc space gets
low I just wipe the directory rather than faffing with the slow
uninstaller architecture. I really really don't want to care bout
jumping through hoops uninstalling things just to keep playing games
I've bought.
Tim.
Nick E. Stephans
<cjmu...@gmail.removethis.com> wrote:
>
>"Nick E. Stephans" <wg1...@ofacemail.com> wrote in message
>news:2pmke557fcc1assjh...@4ax.com...
>>
>> When I buy through Steam, I own the game instead of a piece of shit
>> hunk of plastic. Physical media wears out over time, as many folks
>> have discovered about their CD music collection from the 80s.
>>
>
>No you don't. You own the right to play a game,
As opposed to doing what with it?
Warewolf
september.org:
> EA's DRM allows you to deauthorize a game and they also make it very
> easy to do it.
You are aware that it took **5 CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS** and dozens of 1-star
product reviews on Amazon (among other places) for them to offer that
'service', are you not?
And they are *STILL* playing ridiculous games with their customers. (ie
charging full price for buggy expansions/parts packs; preventing Sims 3
veterans from buying certain items with their SimPoints on top of their
continued use of SecuRom) ~~~}:^(
Personally, I'll take Steam or some Egotistical Assholes' bullshit any day
of the millenium.
Signed,
Warewolf
who remembers when EA *didn't* treat its employees and customers like crap.
Lars Haugseth
How about selling it after you're done with it, or lending it to your
friends and relatives?
--
Lars Haugseth
Colin B.
> Signed,
> Warewolf
> who remembers when EA *didn't* treat its employees and customers like crap.
Yep. I remember Pinball Conwstruction Set as well.
Don Freeman
noman
> "noman" <no_...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote in
> news:hcf7fc$hlu$1...@news.eternal- september.org:
>
> > EA's DRM allows you to deauthorize a game and they also make it very
> > easy to do it.
>
> You are aware that it took **5 CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS** and dozens of
> 1-star product reviews on Amazon (among other places) for them to
> offer that 'service', are you not?
And I don't care, since I never bought those games with the limited
activations.
As of now, EA's DRM scheme is better than any other alternative I can
think of- Steam included.
> Personally, I'll take Steam or some Egotistical Assholes' bullshit
> any day of the millenium.
That's your decision, but you are severely restricted in the use of
your purchased game from Steam, when compared to a lot more flexible
and trouble-free DRM in recent EA releases like Mirror's Edge and
Burnout Paradise.
--
Noman
Nick E. Stephans
The few times I sold games, the price I got for them wasn't worth the
later regret I felt a couple of years later when I wanted to play it.
I have "regular" friends, co-workers/casual acquantenances, and online
gaming friends.. of that group, only the online gaming friends would
be candidates for lending the game to, and it would be pointless
because if they are interested in the game they would buy it on
release and be playing it at the same time as me online. The others
don't play PC games or have no interest in gaming at all.
CJM
>
> The few times I sold games, the price I got for them wasn't worth the
> later regret I felt a couple of years later when I wanted to play it.
> I have "regular" friends, co-workers/casual acquantenances, and online
> gaming friends.. of that group, only the online gaming friends would
> be candidates for lending the game to, and it would be pointless
> because if they are interested in the game they would buy it on
> release and be playing it at the same time as me online. The others
> don't play PC games or have no interest in gaming at all.
I'll never tire of telling this story: I bought Bioshock on pre-order, and
completed it in a couple of weeks. I lent it to my nephew and he finished
inside a week. A banged it on Ebay and sold it for �20, having paid �22 in
the first place. 18 months later, I bought it again on ssteam for �3.50.
I've played it twice, once plasmid-only and once-weapons only.
I don't think I'll play it again, so my inclination is to sell it once more,
but you obviously can't do that on steam. But having spent a total of �5.50,
I think I have had good value for this game.
[Selling is and essential part of my MO - I sell (many) games to fund the
purchase of others. Obviously, some I keep indefinitely, and not just the
ones on steam. A canny bit of wheeling and dealing means that I get to play
any game I want to play without breaking the bank too much.]
Nick E. Stephans
Well the fact that Bioshock was available for $5 (US) not long after
its release is more of an anomaly. And that was one game I never
craved to play again so it's the exception for me and not the rule.
I do understand that with a little bit of work and wheeling/dealing as
you say, the cost of the gaming hobby can be lowered considerably. But
in my case, I find time much harder to come by than money.. as a
consultant I make a good wage on an hourly basis, and I'm not saying
that to come off smug or like a braggart.. I'm just pointing out that
if I spend even 30 minutes trying to save twenty bucks, it is a
massive waste of resources for me, because with a little of wheeling
and dealing I can make 5 to 10 times that in the same half an hour.
Gaming for me is an escape from the rat race of money, and is an area
where convenience and enjoyment win out over savings of small amounts
of money.
Warewolf
september.org:
> Warewolf wrote:
>
>> "noman" <no_...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote in
>> news:hcf7fc$hlu$1...@news.eternal- september.org:
>>
>> > EA's DRM allows you to deauthorize a game and they also make it very
>> > easy to do it.
>>
>> You are aware that it took **5 CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS** and dozens of
>> 1-star product reviews on Amazon (among other places) for them to
>> offer that 'service', are you not?
>
> And I don't care, since I never bought those games with the limited
> activations.
That doesn't make the horror stories of those who have any less valid.
Broken drives and screwed up operating systems are nothing to laugh about.
(Never mind the fact that these ridiculously oppressive DRM schemes *DO NOT
LEAVE WITH THE FUCKING GAME!!!!!* Removal tools. BAH!!) ~~~}X^(
> As of now, EA's DRM scheme is better than any other alternative I can
> think of- Steam included.
Well, in my eyes, EA and everyone else who used SecuROM (or a similar DRM
scheme) has flushed their future(s) down the toilet.
While I can understand the need for a publisher/programming team to make a
profit, you don't **EVER** do it on the toes of your customers.
In fact, did any of these DRM pundits ever ask themselves if the games they
*claimed* were being pirated (read: weren't selling well) were even
playable? *cough*GTA4*cough*
>> Personally, I'll take Steam over some Egotistical Assholes' bullshit
>> any day of the millenium.
>
> That's your decision, but you are severely restricted in the use of
> your purchased game from Steam, when compared to a lot more flexible
> and trouble-free DRM in recent EA releases like Mirror's Edge and
> Burnout Paradise.
Well, here is where we flip the proverbial 'coin'.
When I purchase a game (especially after reading the reviews), I don't sell
it. I install it, play it until I lose interest and either leave it on the
drive for a while or uninstall it and put the floppies/CDs/DVDs back in the
stack.
In fact, with Steam, I can uninstall the main program and reinstall it,
along with my games, *AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TIMES*, something you *can't*
do (along with hardware upgrades) with the current collection of crapware.
(I will admit that some of Valve's compilations could use some work - why
can't those extra copies of HL2 and Ep1 be traded for other products?) 9_9
When more and more classic games are being re-released as freeware (or
being remade/improved upon by fans), there is no excuse for *ANY* amount of
hassle. (especially 'CD checks' *glares at the makers of Total War*)
In fact, these businesses should be *rewarding* their customers with a lot
more than an enjoyable, bug-free game.
(And yes, 'Becky', I'm looking at you) }:^(
Signed,
Warewolf
who can only guess at the number of games that had their DRM patched out.
I know that Diablo II, Warcraft III, Starcraft and FarCry 2 are on that
list. *shrug*
Warewolf
news:4aef1c34$0$1602$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Colin B. wrote:
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure Warewolf <warewol...@shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Signed,
>>> Warewolf
>>> who remembers when EA *didn't* treat its employees and customers
>>> like crap.
>>
>> Yep. I remember Pinball Construction Set as well.
>
> M.U.L.E.
> (C=64 version)
the Bard's Tale series
Adventure Construction Set
Seven Cities of Gold
Mail Order Monsters
Classic after classic after classic...
With all these brilliant games under their belts, you *seriously* have to
ask yourself, 'What the hell happened?!'
And then you realize...they (d)evolved. 9_9
*shakes his head at the zombified T-Rex*
*wandering through the digital streets*
*before looking through his 'Pile-O-Treasures'*
*for his favorite wave motion gun*
Here's hoping we can all send its spore-infested carcass back the 'inferno'
Don Freeman
> Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote in
> news:4aef1c34$0$1602$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Colin B. wrote:
>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure Warewolf <warewol...@shaw.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Warewolf
>>>> who remembers when EA *didn't* treat its employees and customers
>>>> like crap.
>>> Yep. I remember Pinball Construction Set as well.
>> M.U.L.E.
>> (C=64 version)
>
> the Bard's Tale series
> Adventure Construction Set
> Seven Cities of Gold
> Mail Order Monsters
>
> Classic after classic after classic...
>
> With all these brilliant games under their belts, you *seriously* have to
> ask yourself, 'What the hell happened?!'
>
I was invited and went to one of their focus groups back then. They
were very concerned about the customers viewpoints and discussed our
impressions and suggestions in detail. Now it's pretty much just take
what we give you. Oh joy, Madden XXIX.
--
-Don
Don Freeman
> In fact, did any of these DRM pundits ever ask themselves if the games they
> *claimed* were being pirated (read: weren't selling well) were even
> playable? *cough*GTA4*cough*
>
So it isn't just me that thinks that it is one of the worst console
ports ever? Okay, I do know that "bad" and "console port" are redundant
terms.
--
-Don
noman
> "noman" <no_...@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote in
> news:hcneb0$s0r$1...@news.eternal- september.org:
>
> > Warewolf wrote:
> >
> >> You are aware that it took **5 CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS** and dozens
> of >> 1-star product reviews on Amazon (among other places) for them
> to >> offer that 'service', are you not?
> >
> > And I don't care, since I never bought those games with the limited
> > activations.
>
> That doesn't make the horror stories of those who have any less valid.
It's besides the point. If you know people having problems with latest
EA games, I'd like to know.
>
> Broken drives and screwed up operating systems are nothing to laugh
> about. (Never mind the fact that these ridiculously oppressive DRM
> schemes *DO NOT LEAVE WITH THE FUCKING GAME!!!!!* Removal tools.
> BAH!!) ~~~}X^(
If you read my earlier post, you'll see I mention how easy
deauthorizing these games are. If you need it, it's a menu option just
like "Uninstall" is a menu option.
> > As of now, EA's DRM scheme is better than any other alternative I
> > can think of- Steam included.
>
> Well, in my eyes, EA and everyone else who used SecuROM (or a similar
> DRM scheme) has flushed their future(s) down the toilet.
I don't think you understand what SecuROM is.
> In fact, with Steam, I can uninstall the main program and reinstall
> it, along with my games, *AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF TIMES*, something
> you can't do (along with hardware upgrades) with the current
> collection of crapware.
I am not talking about generics here. The thread title is quite
specific and I have also mentioned specific titles. You can install
them unlimited number of times too, and there 's no account
login/password to manage, no launcher, no online-connection past the
first one, no restrictions on how you get the patches, no restrictions
on how you sell it or give it away, the ability to run it
simultaneously on multiple PCs and no need to keep the disc in drive.
Steam can only do one of these features (the offline mode) and even
that has its restrictions.
And I am not just comparing it to Steam, but all the other copy
protection schemes I have seen in last twenty years. EA's approach in
recent games is the most hassle-free I can think of.
Your personal opinons (and horror stories from past) don't change any
of the facts I mentioned for how the situation is currently.
--
Noman
Ceowulf
>
> "Sheldon England" <sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:hccptr$cfa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> Games, word processors, image editors, spreadsheets, video editing --
>> if it is software you cannot ever buy it, you can only obtain a
>> license for use.
>>
>
> You were traditionally purchasing a perpetual license that allowed you
> to use the software with relative freedom. Current DRM often tries to
> limit the number of machines which you can install it on, and often
> other restrictions besides.
>
> And publishers are itching to go further still... to move from perpetual
> licenses to rental arrangements; �xx per month or year to continue using
> the software. Why charge �25 per game if you can get away with �10 -�15
> per month?
I think you're very right. We have the many successful MMO developers
out there "showing the way" for all developers/producers :(
I don't want to live in a world where I have to pay rent on every bloody
thing I buy relating to my hobby :/
Ceo-
Ceowulf
> Colin B. wrote:
>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure noman <no_...@zzzyahoo.yycom>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>> 2) Online activations
>> Stop right there.
>>
>> If I have to activate a game, then I haven't bought it--I've licensed
>> it, subject to the continuity and whim of the company I licensed it
>> from. Not Acceptable.
>
> I don't like online activations either, but if there has to be one,
> then EA's current implementation is not bad. I am free to sell the game
> or
> give it as a gift to anyone without any problems. Of course EA can
> decide to not let me revoke a license, but that has smaller chance of
> happening than my DVD physical media going bad.
>
> It also allows me to have simultaneous play sessions on different PCs,
> which is only somewhat doable with disc-based copy protection.
>
> Of course, DRM implementations like Steam allow none of that.
I despise online activations, I had a wobbly when I forced to use Steam
for Dawn of War 2 :p
EA however managed to quite successfully fool me this time... In the
retail copy of DA:O there are two "bonus" downloadable thingies, one a
cool set of plate armour and the other a new NPC, complete with new
quests NPC interactions and areas.
So there I was registering my copy with EA to enter in my codes for
these items when I realised that I'd just basically activated my product
online *face palm*.
Still, not a bad way to go; if your going to force something like online
activations at least throw us a bone, and at least it's not Steam :)
Ceo-
noman
> I despise online activations, I had a wobbly when I forced to use
> Steam for Dawn of War 2 :p
I don't like games bought at retail to be managed by a third-party
application either, especially one where you can't detach the game from
that account.
> EA however managed to quite successfully fool me this time... In the
> retail copy of DA:O there are two "bonus" downloadable thingies, one
> a cool set of plate armour and the other a new NPC, complete with new
> quests NPC interactions and areas.
>
> So there I was registering my copy with EA to enter in my codes for
> these items when I realised that I'd just basically activated my
> product online *face palm*.
>
> Still, not a bad way to go; if your going to force something like
> online activations at least throw us a bone, and at least it's not
> Steam :)
The basic model for recent EA releases is that when you install the
game from the DVD and enter your game-key, it's activated right there.
You don't need an account/password. Subsequent installations on the
same PC don't require activations. You can also have up to four extra
simultaneous installs on other PCs. This isn't like Steam, where you
can install on multiple PC but can play from one PC at a time. So you
can buy Mirror's Edge and install it on a friend's PC as well and both
of you can play the game without any restrictions. At any time you can
revoke an activation by 'de-authorizing' the PC. It's an option present
in the right click menu or in the game's start-group folder.
If you had not downloaded the DLC for DragonAge, the game would still
have been activated in the background.
As far as downloading DLC is concerned, I hope DragonAge retail-version
doesn't require you to create an account. If it does need one, I might
just wait and get the GOTY/Gold edition when all the content is
included on the retail DVD.
--
Noman
Sheldon England
>
> I despise online activations, I had a wobbly when I forced to use Steam
> for Dawn of War 2 :p
What the hell is a wobbly?
And ... is Dawn of War 2 any good? I have a Steam DL code for it but not
actually DLed it yet.
- Sheldon