EA lightens DRM on Red Alert 3, but misses the point

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Seriously, when will all of these companies realize that these DRM schemes are a waste of resources and a waste of everyone's time?

teardropmina

they don't need to realize since these DRM are not only not a waste of resource but will effectively prevent/limit the used game circulation (ebay, amazon market etc. and loaning/borrowing games), which IS what these DRM are for to begin with.

That's an interesting point, but I rarely see used PC games as it is, even if the only DRM on them is that the disc needs to be in the drive.

[QUOTE="teardropmina"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Seriously, when will all of these companies realize that these DRM schemes are a waste of resources and a waste of everyone's time?

SpaceMoose

they don't need to realize since these DRM are not only not a waste of resource but will effectively prevent/limit the used game circulation (ebay, amazon market etc. and loaning/borrowing games), which IS what these DRM are for to begin with.

That's an interesting point, but I rarely see used PC games as it is, even if the only DRM on them is that the disc needs to be in the drive.

sorry, I don't get what you meant?

anyway, lets say, if you actually end up only use one install, the game can only be exchanged 4 times max, either you loan it or sell it, and your friends circulate it around or the person who bought the used game from you re-sell it or loan it etc....regardlessly how the game's journey go after you install it, EA/Crytek makes sure that it will only be installed on 4 different computers and no more.

and they actually make it clear this time, I've already posted it in another thread, they actually print "Do Not Lend" on the game disc.

You know what they should do? They should clearly print the number of activations on the box. Then they should come out with editions of the game with different amounts of activations. You can pay $29.95 for 3 activations, pay $44.95 for 5 activations, and pay $59.95 for 7 activations. Then, when you run out of activations, you can call EA and BUY more activations!

Falconoffury

I don't think that would be good for EA because people who are willing to support this activation thing can just pay $30 for "3 activations" but use a crack to bypass it anyway.

sorry, I don't get what you meant?

anyway, lets say, if you actually end up only use one install, the game can only be exchanged 4 times max, either you loan it or sell it, and your friends circulate it around or the person who bought the used game from you re-sell it or loan it etc....regardlessly how the game's journey go after you install it, EA/Crytek makes sure that it will only be installed on 4 different computers and no more.

and they actually make it clear this time, I've already posted it in another thread, they actually print "Do Not Lend" on the game disc.

teardropmina

I'm saying that even with PC games that don't have DRM or the only "DRM" is needing the disc to be in the drive to play, I rarely see them resold in any stores anyway.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="teardropmina"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

Seriously, when will all of these companies realize that these DRM schemes are a waste of resources and a waste of everyone's time?

teardropmina

they don't need to realize since these DRM are not only not a waste of resource but will effectively prevent/limit the used game circulation (ebay, amazon market etc. and loaning/borrowing games), which IS what these DRM are for to begin with.

That's an interesting point, but I rarely see used PC games as it is, even if the only DRM on them is that the disc needs to be in the drive.

sorry, I don't get what you meant?

anyway, lets say, if you actually end up only use one install, the game can only be exchanged 4 times max, either you loan it or sell it, and your friends circulate it around or the person who bought the used game from you re-sell it or loan it etc....regardlessly how the game's journey go after you install it, EA/Crytek makes sure that it will only be installed on 4 different computers and no more.

and they actually make it clear this time, I've already posted it in another thread, they actually print "Do Not Lend" on the game disc.

I'm saying that even with PC games that don't have DRM or the only "DRM" is needing the disc to be in the drive to play, I rarely see them resold in any stores anyway.

SpaceMoose

I don't know where you live, but you can check out ebay and Amazon.com It's not really "stores" selling used games; it's gamers ourselves - we may lend the game to friends or sell the game on ebay or Amazon. EA/Crytek just want to make sure that one copy of the game will only change hands 4 times max (even less if the original buyer, not owner, since the game still belongs to EA/Crytek after we pay, uses more than one install).

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

I'm saying that even with PC games that don't have DRM or the only "DRM" is needing the disc to be in the drive to play, I rarely see them resold in any stores anyway.

teardropmina

I don't know where you live, but you can check out ebay and Amazon.com It's not really "stores" selling used games; it's gamers ourselves - we may lend the game to friends or sell the game on ebay or Amazon. EA/Crytek just want to make sure that one copy of the game will only change hands 4 times max (even less if the original buyer, not owner, since the game still belongs to EA/Crytek after we pay, uses more than one install).

The revoke tool doesn't cut it for me. I am still paying to lease a game via a service. I'm not paying for a game itself. Falconoffury

I've heard that you can call EA to request more activations. How many times you can call them and get another activation is questionable. It's an unnecessary hassle that paying customers of games did not have to deal with until recently. I for one, will vote with my wallet, and not buy games like this. Remember that the revoke activation tool does not cover all eventualities. Most gamers who don't follow the news probably don't even know they have a limit on activations because it isn't printed clearly on the game box.

I've heard that you can call EA to request more activations. How many times you can call them and get another activation is questionable. It's an unnecessary hassle that paying customers of games did not have to deal with until recently. I for one, will vote with my wallet, and not buy games like this. Remember that the revoke activation tool does not cover all eventualities. Most gamers who don't follow the news probably don't even know they have a limit on activations because it isn't printed clearly on the game box.

Falconoffury

I also hate DRM,it's unfair for paying customers!

Agreed. This is getting ridiculous. I'm tired of EA. Perhaps with continued public uproar they'll eventually eliminate the activiation limit on their games. Or perhaps that's just wishful thinking.en-z-io

Definitely just wishful thinking. Public uproar doesn't affect them. Eventually most developers will switch to a Steam-like system in order to both protect their content and reduce said public outcry. That, or eventually market forces will cause the devs to switch to consoles as they are much harder to pirate for (especially when you consider the entry cost to obtaining a blu-ray writer / software to allow you to do it).

[QUOTE="en-z-io"]Agreed. This is getting ridiculous. I'm tired of EA. Perhaps with continued public uproar they'll eventually eliminate the activiation limit on their games. Or perhaps that's just wishful thinking.RomanticFool

Definitely just wishful thinking. Public uproar doesn't affect them. Eventually most developers will switch to a Steam-like system in order to both protect their content and reduce said public outcry. That, or eventually market forces will cause the devs to switch to consoles as they are much harder to pirate for (especially when you consider the entry cost to obtaining a blu-ray writer / software to allow you to do it).

You do realize that by the time this happens blu ray burners will be cheap. And also that Pc gaming will focus more on digital distribution. The reason why theres less piracy on consoles, and not because its harder to pirate its because theres a more open platform and pirates are less interested in consoles. Its just how this works. Same with movies and music.

And also starting to wonder that these drm are to annoy users to buy a console instead.

I have been playing EA games ever since i was 9.... and i have seen EA reach great heights.....But now is the Time that EA will go down...it seems that EA are too mch worried about MONEY and their PRODUCTS rather than their customers....for example...take CnC3 Kane's Wrath.....they put in 10 or 12 more units in CnC 3 and expect us to pay $60 more... wtf??....Time and time again we have tried to coope with EA's freakish lookin new rules but now they have gone toooooo FAR...I read a fact that in AMAZON.com the average rating given by people to the game ''SPORE'' is a disturbing 2 out of 5....WHY??? just because of the ******* DRM rule....it also said that in 1500 reviewers 1029 gave it a 1 star....ALL because of the DRM rule...EA now are focusing more on the money brought in....they want us to buy the game again and again an tell us that they are acting against PIRACY....man is EA that dumb???.....we are Teenagers and adults for God sake....every game they tell us that ''this game will not be pirated due to this kind of security''....funny thing it has always seemed that the pirates are 2 steps ahead....EA has gone COOKOO...if Westwood would have been incharge i bet RA3 would be more fun to play considering value for money and Gameplay....take my advice.....if u wanrt to play the game, WAIT TILL THE PIRATED VERSION COMES OUT....and all those who say that ''CANT PLAY ONLINE AND **** LIKE THAT''...go eat ****t.....we have millions of online internet servers and virtual networks for online play...This will FORCE EA to change the DRM rule and hopefully they will realise what their customers want.... but personally THIS WILL BE THE FIRST GAME I WILL NOT BUY FORM EA....i will wait for the Pirated version....and i can BET my life that no matter what kind of security is tere PIRATES WILL ALWAYS BE 1 STEP AHEAD OF EA......

I have been playing EA games ever since i was 9.... and i have seen EA reach great heights.....But now is the Time that EA will go down...it seems that EA are too mch worried about MONEY and their PRODUCTS rather than their customers....for example...take CnC3 Kane's Wrath.....they put in 10 or 12 more units in CnC 3 and expect us to pay $60 more... wtf??....Time and time again we have tried to coope with EA's freakish lookin new rules but now they have gone toooooo FAR...I read a fact that in AMAZON.com the average rating given by people to the game ''SPORE'' is a disturbing 2 out of 5....WHY??? just because of the ******* DRM rule....it also said that in 1500 reviewers 1029 gave it a 1 star....ALL because of the DRM rule...EA now are focusing more on the money brought in....they want us to buy the game again and again an tell us that they are acting against PIRACY....man is EA that dumb???.....we are Teenagers and adults for God sake....every game they tell us that ''this game will not be pirated due to this kind of security''....funny thing it has always seemed that the pirates are 2 steps ahead....EA has gone COOKOO...if Westwood would have been incharge i bet RA3 would be more fun to play considering value for money and Gameplay....take my advice.....if u wanrt to play the game, WAIT TILL THE PIRATED VERSION COMES OUT....and all those who say that ''CANT PLAY ONLINE AND **** LIKE THAT''...go eat ****t.....we have millions of online internet servers and virtual networks for online play...This will FORCE EA to change the DRM rule and hopefully they will realise what their customers want.... but personally THIS WILL BE THE FIRST GAME I WILL NOT BUY FORM EA....i will wait for the Pirated version....and i can BET my life that no matter what kind of security is tere PIRATES WILL ALWAYS BE 1 STEP AHEAD OF EA......

Sidewinder31

[QUOTE="Falconoffury"]The revoke tool doesn't cut it for me. I am still paying to lease a game via a service. I'm not paying for a game itself. Makari

Again, you get five installs... PERIOD. Okay, not actually installs, activations. And every time the server thinks you are on a new computer, you burn an activation. Reformatting, that sort of thing automatically counts as an activation. Some hardware changes do too, but EA isn't telling anyone what changes will trigger an activation. Not that you could trust them, some people are reporting that new vid cards are triggering activations, and EA (well, Bioware, same diff) flat out said that wouldn't trigger it. So, again, 5 installations/activations, either on one computer or spread out over 5. Same number, then you are on the phone (toll call) to EA nonsupport begging to be allowed to play your game. Sounds like a lease to me. Actually, sounds like a screwing.

[QUOTE="Falconoffury"]

I've heard that you can call EA to request more activations. How many times you can call them and get another activation is questionable. It's an unnecessary hassle that paying customers of games did not have to deal with until recently. I for one, will vote with my wallet, and not buy games like this. Remember that the revoke activation tool does not cover all eventualities. Most gamers who don't follow the news probably don't even know they have a limit on activations because it isn't printed clearly on the game box.

Makari

Unless of course you are reinstalling because of a hardware crash, not allowing you a chance to use the revoke tool to uninstall. Unless you happen to forget to run the revoke tool (easy to do, just takes a moment of distraction) and lose that activation. Unless the system has a hiccup and the revoke tool doesn't work that one time. Unless they revoke tool is buggy. Unless the servers are buggy. Unless the servers are down... Do I really need to go on? But hey, why not a revoke tool? It worked so well for Bioshock, everyone was satisfied! :roll:

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="Falconoffury"]The revoke tool doesn't cut it for me. I am still paying to lease a game via a service. I'm not paying for a game itself. Royas

Again, you get five installs... PERIOD. Okay, not actually installs, activations. And every time the server thinks you are on a new computer, you burn an activation. Reformatting, that sort of thing automatically counts as an activation. Some hardware changes do too, but EA isn't telling anyone what changes will trigger an activation. Not that you could trust them, some people are reporting that new vid cards are triggering activations, and EA (well, Bioware, same diff) flat out said that wouldn't trigger it. So, again, 5 installations/activations, either on one computer or spread out over 5. Same number, then you are on the phone (toll call) to EA nonsupport begging to be allowed to play your game. Sounds like a lease to me. Actually, sounds like a screwing.

[QUOTE="Royas"]

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="Falconoffury"]The revoke tool doesn't cut it for me. I am still paying to lease a game via a service. I'm not paying for a game itself. Makari

Again, you get five installs... PERIOD. Okay, not actually installs, activations. And every time the server thinks you are on a new computer, you burn an activation. Reformatting, that sort of thing automatically counts as an activation. Some hardware changes do too, but EA isn't telling anyone what changes will trigger an activation. Not that you could trust them, some people are reporting that new vid cards are triggering activations, and EA (well, Bioware, same diff) flat out said that wouldn't trigger it. So, again, 5 installations/activations, either on one computer or spread out over 5. Same number, then you are on the phone (toll call) to EA nonsupport begging to be allowed to play your game. Sounds like a lease to me. Actually, sounds like a screwing.

First, people DID have problems with the activation for Bioshock. People burned through the initial 3 installs/activations on the first day, that's why they so "generously" upped the number to 5. At least they wised up enough to actually eliminate the activation limits finally. A bit too little, a bit too late, but it's something, at least. And with Apple, you could burn that song to a CD and have it forever, as many copies as you wanted. You could then even rip that CD to a non-DRM format, like MP3. All of a sudden, you have no limits on the use of your music, all legal, all easy, even a novice could figure out how to do it. Not a good parallel.

Second, I'll agree that going through 5 major crashes in a short time is unlikely. How about over 5 years? 7? 10? I have games older than that in my collection, games that I still play. Are you saying it's reasonable for me to worry about being able to play a game I bought years down the line? I buy good games with the intention of being able to play them for years. Heck, I can name a half dozen games right now that I've installed on at least 5 "different" computers by SecuROM's probable standards. This isn't a short term problem, it's a long term problem.

Third, they SAY video cards don't count, but again, people are changing cards and having to re-activate. Given that EA will not tell anyone what changes will trigger an activation (we've been BEGGING for that information on the Bioware boards), I'm inclined to not trust anything they say now. Personally, I have no trouble believing that just changing a card could trigger the DRM. Just because it didn't on one computer, doesn't mean it won't on another. That's the other magical thing about computers, every system reacts differently to software, and you can't predict how.

You can't get around this. Limited activations are a bad idea, flat out. They only hurt the customer, they don't hurt the pirate. Spore was available within what, 24 hours of release in Australia? Mass Effect took about a week or so for a completely working crack? The pirates aren't being effected by the DRM and limits on activations, people who put their money down are. This has nothing to do with piracy. EA executives have flat out said they want to choke out the second hand market, this is their way of doing it. I don't care if they give me 20 activations, it should be unlimited. And until it is, they won't get my spending dollar.

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="Royas"]

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="Falconoffury"]The revoke tool doesn't cut it for me. I am still paying to lease a game via a service. I'm not paying for a game itself. Royas

Again, you get five installs... PERIOD. Okay, not actually installs, activations. And every time the server thinks you are on a new computer, you burn an activation. Reformatting, that sort of thing automatically counts as an activation. Some hardware changes do too, but EA isn't telling anyone what changes will trigger an activation. Not that you could trust them, some people are reporting that new vid cards are triggering activations, and EA (well, Bioware, same diff) flat out said that wouldn't trigger it. So, again, 5 installations/activations, either on one computer or spread out over 5. Same number, then you are on the phone (toll call) to EA nonsupport begging to be allowed to play your game. Sounds like a lease to me. Actually, sounds like a screwing.

First, people DID have problems with the activation for Bioshock. People burned through the initial 3 installs/activations on the first day, that's why they so "generously" upped the number to 5. At least they wised up enough to actually eliminate the activation limits finally. A bit too little, a bit too late, but it's something, at least. And with Apple, you could burn that song to a CD and have it forever, as many copies as you wanted. You could then even rip that CD to a non-DRM format, like MP3. All of a sudden, you have no limits on the use of your music, all legal, all easy, even a novice could figure out how to do it. Not a good parallel.

Second, I'll agree that going through 5 major crashes in a short time is unlikely. How about over 5 years? 7? 10? I have games older than that in my collection, games that I still play. Are you saying it's reasonable for me to worry about being able to play a game I bought years down the line? I buy good games with the intention of being able to play them for years. Heck, I can name a half dozen games right now that I've installed on at least 5 "different" computers by SecuROM's probable standards. This isn't a short term problem, it's a long term problem.

Third, they SAY video cards don't count, but again, people are changing cards and having to re-activate. Given that EA will not tell anyone what changes will trigger an activation (we've been BEGGING for that information on the Bioware boards), I'm inclined to not trust anything they say now. Personally, I have no trouble believing that just changing a card could trigger the DRM. Just because it didn't on one computer, doesn't mean it won't on another. That's the other magical thing about computers, every system reacts differently to software, and you can't predict how.

You can't get around this. Limited activations are a bad idea, flat out. They only hurt the customer, they don't hurt the pirate. Spore was available within what, 24 hours of release in Australia? Mass Effect took about a week or so for a completely working crack? The pirates aren't being effected by the DRM and limits on activations, people who put their money down are. This has nothing to do with piracy. EA executives have flat out said they want to choke out the second hand market, this is their way of doing it. I don't care if they give me 20 activations, it should be unlimited. And until it is, they won't get my spending dollar.

First, people DID have problems with the activation for Bioshock...elaborate negotating how much right Corporate would give customers snip...

Royas

your effort is respectable. but I think it's all moot once you buy into the corporate logic that they set the rules that install limit is a necessity, because if so all discussions are simply about degree (how many installs) not kind (with or without limit).

anyway, since for corporate people, "piracy" consists of 1) cracking and online downloading cracked versions, 2) re-sell and buying used games, and 3) loaning and borrowing games among friends or within families. whatever DRM they come up with would be necessary.

However, I'd just want them to say it out loud, clearly tell us which DRM is for which kind of piracy. Flash back, whenever EA and Crytek or any other corporates talking about piracy, they always only mention online illegal copy downloading. Crytek defines piracy problem by identifying altered exe. file, which will not happen in piracy definitions #2 and #3.

this install limit DRM clearly is not stopping piracy #1, but effective against #2 and #3...but why all the time corporates simply single #1 out? and say whatever they do in DRM is to stop piracy. When all you talk about is online illegal download, isn't it *normal* for people to think that your DRM is to stop that kind of piracy???? yet, all we get is a DRM that cannot prevent games being cracked and has no effect whatsoever on those who play cracked/illegal games.

just plain say it: with this DRM we just want to make sure that gamers don't pass their games around at will, be they sell used games on ebay or loaning and borrowing games - that's also pirating!

[QUOTE="Royas"]

First, people DID have problems with the activation for Bioshock. People burned through the initial 3 installs/activations on the first day, that's why they so "generously" upped the number to 5. At least they wised up enough to actually eliminate the activation limits finally. A bit too little, a bit too late, but it's something, at least. And with Apple, you could burn that song to a CD and have it forever, as many copies as you wanted. You could then even rip that CD to a non-DRM format, like MP3. All of a sudden, you have no limits on the use of your music, all legal, all easy, even a novice could figure out how to do it. Not a good parallel.

Second, I'll agree that going through 5 major crashes in a short time is unlikely. How about over 5 years? 7? 10? I have games older than that in my collection, games that I still play. Are you saying it's reasonable for me to worry about being able to play a game I bought years down the line? I buy good games with the intention of being able to play them for years. Heck, I can name a half dozen games right now that I've installed on at least 5 "different" computers by SecuROM's probable standards. This isn't a short term problem, it's a long term problem.

Third, they SAY video cards don't count, but again, people are changing cards and having to re-activate. Given that EA will not tell anyone what changes will trigger an activation (we've been BEGGING for that information on the Bioware boards), I'm inclined to not trust anything they say now. Personally, I have no trouble believing that just changing a card could trigger the DRM. Just because it didn't on one computer, doesn't mean it won't on another. That's the other magical thing about computers, every system reacts differently to software, and you can't predict how.

You can't get around this. Limited activations are a bad idea, flat out. They only hurt the customer, they don't hurt the pirate. Spore was available within what, 24 hours of release in Australia? Mass Effect took about a week or so for a completely working crack? The pirates aren't being effected by the DRM and limits on activations, people who put their money down are. This has nothing to do with piracy. EA executives have flat out said they want to choke out the second hand market, this is their way of doing it. I don't care if they give me 20 activations, it should be unlimited. And until it is, they won't get my spending dollar.

Makari

I'll agree that they did make corrections to the initial problems. It certainly got better than it was the first day. Credit where credit is due, and all that. I'm even pleasantly surprised they kept their word, and removed the activation limits after time had passed (even Starforce officially recommends removing DRM after a couple of months). That doesn't excuse the debacle they had on launch. And actually, I have Bioshock. I bought it before I knew about the DRM, or I wouldn't have gotten it. So, I'm one of the people who bought it and dealt with it. Their efforts before removing the activation limits were not good enough in my mind. However, since they did follow through with removing the limits, I will purchase from 2k in the future. I just hope they decide that limited activations are a bad idea, and don't use them again.

To be honest, I am arguing more from an ideological point of view as opposed to a practical point of view. I'll admit that most people aren't going to encounter problems with this activation scheme for at least a couple of years. I just have a real problem with my ability to play a game I paid good money for being dependent on the existence and goodwill of the makers of that game. Right now, legally, EA can shut down their activation servers for Mass Effect and Spore, without warning and without patching the activations out. It's right in the EULA that they consider that to be their right. They aren't even willing to bend enough to guarantee that they will eventually remove the limits. If they stick to that, the same people who are happy now, will probably find themselves unhappy in a few years when they install one of these games 3 years from now and it won't start because the servers are gone, or they used up their activations already. That's the big reason I object to this method, I play games years after they are published, on multiple systems. I don't want to have to waste my time with EA non-support (because let's face it, EA customer support is poor at best, abysmal at worst) to get a game up and running. I really don't think that's expecting too much.

Tilting at windmills here, I guess :D

Dude ur definetly not getting the freakin point.....its not only about u....there are millions of users on earth which are absolutely pissed off by the DRM rule....lets do this in another way.....

lets say i bought the game and installed it on my comp. 27-10-08

but i bought a new PC the next month so i reinstall.. 27-11-08

then after a few days my computer gets fuked up by an insane virus so i again install... 12-12-08

after a few weeks i decide to buy Windows Vista....so i reinstall... 10-1-09

but then i have to reformat my hard disk due to some internal damage.... 30-1-09

after that anyother common problem will mean the end of ur Game.....Havea nice day

So ppl considering an average user's PC the game will be gone within a year or even six months......besides that even if we dont use 5 installations it will still be on the back of our mind that ''oh **** i only have x number of installs left'' its like renting a game for the price of 3 full CnC Genrals Zero Hour, which i bet is a far better game than RA 3 or CnC3....

Tilting at windmills here, I guess :DRoyas

Dude ur definetly not getting the freakin point.....its not only about u....there are millions of users on earth which are absolutely pissed off by the DRM rule....lets do this in another way.....

lets say i bought the game and installed it on my comp. 27-10-08

but i bought a new PC the next month so i reinstall.. 27-11-08

then after a few days my computer gets fuked up by an insane virus so i again install... 12-12-08

after a few weeks i decide to buy Windows Vista....so i reinstall... 10-1-09

but then i have to reformat my hard disk due to some internal damage.... 30-1-09

after that anyother common problem will mean the end of ur Game.....Havea nice day

So ppl considering an average user's PC the game will be gone within a year or even six months......besides that even if we dont use 5 installations it will still be on the back of our mind that ''oh **** i only have x number of installs left'' its like renting a game for the price of 3 full CnC Genrals Zero Hour, which i bet is a far better game than RA 3 or CnC3....

Sidewinder31

[QUOTE="Royas"]Tilting at windmills here, I guess :DMakari

What's kind of funny about this, I used to be an EA defender. You know, people would come on and talk about how much their games sucked, that sort of thing, and I'd tend to take the opposite side. After all, EA's development houses have made some good games, I doubt they'd be as big as they are if all their games were that bad. Now, with this DRM, I'm much less inclined to stand up for them. Still, I'm not too worried over the long term. We went through this DRM nonsense with music too. The pendelum swings one way, then the other, it'll come back to the direction of "no DRM" soon enough. Give it a couple of years, limited activations will go away and seem like a bad dream.

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="Royas"]Tilting at windmills here, I guess :DRoyas

What's kind of funny about this, I used to be an EA defender. You know, people would come on and talk about how much their games sucked, that sort of thing, and I'd tend to take the opposite side. After all, EA's development houses have made some good games, I doubt they'd be as big as they are if all their games were that bad. Now, with this DRM, I'm much less inclined to stand up for them. Still, I'm not too worried over the long term. We went through this DRM nonsense with music too. The pendelum swings one way, then the other, it'll come back to the direction of "no DRM" soon enough. Give it a couple of years, limited activations will go away and seem like a bad dream.

EA will allow 5 activations and you will not need the DVD in the drive in order to play, but it has totally missed the point of the uproar against their recent DRM schemes. The problem is not the number of activations, but the existence of a limit on activations at all. 5, 10 15, it does not matter. You do not tell me how many times I can install a game, period. I don't care if the game is the most beautiful, genius, uplifting, and influential game I ever experienced that positively affects me for the rest of my life. No game publisher gets one penny of my hard earned money who dictates the number of times I can install its product. Falconoffury

agreed. What's even more upsetting is that STEAM has allowed not only Bioshock, but Crysis as well with the limited Activation scheme. This is unacceptable. One of the main attractions to STEAM was that the games would be yours in your account to install and reinstall at you pleasure. Being that we're PC Gamers, wiping your harddrive and upgrading our rigs costs us Activations. Anytime a system like this is imposed on the paying customer, it's only us that have to deal with it. The thieves get the proper version that we're supposed to get, a version that doesn't imply you're gonna spread it around like thieves.

The bottom line here is, the Developers/Publishers prove they have a distrust and disdain for their own customers. They know, we know, everyone knows these DRM measures only limit legit customers, and that's their intention. If they want to stop zero day piracy, then they need to patch this garbage out of the products, much like 2K did with Bioshock, but sooner. This is typical EA though, and it's a shame because they are putting out some great titles, just riddled with cancer.

Take a look at Mirror's Edge, EA is delaying the PC release into next year, and only releasing the console versions this year(listen to the latest PC Gamer Podcast for more info). Not only do PC Gamers have to wait, you're most likely gonna have to deal with Activation Limitations, and if you can't deactivate, you better hope your HDD doesn't crash, because then you'll have to contact Customer Support and convince them that you're a legit customer to get that activation back.

None of this is any good for the consumer either way and DRM is making for a very negative climate, just look around the net recently for reaction to this. I actually think it's driving otherwise legit customers into piracy if anything.

Short answer, they're using the EXACT SAME system 2K did with Bioshock (edit: or Apple with itunes for.. how long has that been going on for?). People didn't have problems with it. Your idea that people are going to run through 5 major hardware crashes in a short period of time is a stretch, and according to the evidence one that doesn't actually happen to people to the point where it causes a problem. They say video cards don't count because the system doesn't pay attention to video cards. At all. It doesn't even look at that. If it's being triggered, they did something else - with the magic of computers, users have the ability to break things we didn't know possible.Makari

People had MAJOR issues with Bioshock, you obviously weren't over at the official Bioshock forums, wow. People not only opposed it, there were countless people that were having customer service problems, well documented in the months that followed. Bioshock's DRM was unacceptable, and now EA's is as well. Simple. BTW, reformatting the HDD will loose an activation in many Securom implementations.

Since we're never going back, DRM needs to change to an ownership model(STEAM), and not a specific PC hardware model we are seeing with Securom hardware activations. EA and all others should seriously consider a web-based registration that keeps count of their customers, where their customers can login, register on their site, place their keys into the system, and tell EA what PC(s) they are using that key on, and also be able to create multiple family accounts through their website as well(something EA/Maxis should have done with Spore before launch). None of this should be done on the disc at all or tie to any hardware on that particular PC installation. There are just too many issues users can have. This needs to go to the Cloud.

EA and others would be doing much fan service if they tied their games to the owners, not the hardware, which is exactly the problem here. Not only that, but give the customer the ability to unlink a CD-Key so they can sell it, if they have a physical copy. This system would basically mirror STEAM's way of doing business, something PC Gamers have embraced openly over the years for the most part, as games don't tie to hardware, but re-enforce ownership.( Well, except EA's Crytek's Crysis that STEAM allowed to infest on the STEAM network, will be patched out from what I'm hearing, thankfully).

Anytime a publisher limits activations or limits PC's the customers can play on, it's just not good for the paying customer, and especially the hardcore PC Gamer that upgrades and reinstalls their OS on an occasional basis. While casual customers probably won't have an issue or even notice, EA needs to cater to their base of hardcore PC Gamers that don't deserve this sort of DRM, especially since it doesn't jive with their habbits at all.

I personally have no problem letting EA know that I own game X (registering a game like always) and that I want to install and play this game for years and years to come on multiple PC's throughout the years(I can give dozens of examples of just that, Stracraft, Freespace, and Warcraft just to name 3 most current) . In order to do this, the customer's need to have a relationship with the Publisher that is painless and doesn't restrict the user. The current climate stinks, and people on both side need to come together an come up with a solution that is not unilateral, but comfy for both parties. Instead of people bashing each other, we need to come up with real solutions that will work for both parties involved here. What's say you?

Doesn't bother me...I got ME and Warhead. ( and Bioshock )

Seems like everyone has forgotten that Bioshock ( 2K ) dropped the install limit.

Never had any problems with games with DRM..

I agree it shouldn't be there in the first place but it's not going to stop me from buying any more DRM games.

Feel sorry for anyone who passed up any game because of it....

People had MAJOR issues with Bioshock, you obviously weren't over at the official Bioshock forums, wow. People not only opposed it, there were countless people that were having customer service problems, well documented in the months that followed. Bioshock's DRM was unacceptable, and now EA's is as well. Simple. BTW, reformatting the HDD will loose an activation in many Securom implementations.mismajor99

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]People had MAJOR issues with Bioshock, you obviously weren't over at the official Bioshock forums, wow. People not only opposed it, there were countless people that were having customer service problems, well documented in the months that followed. Bioshock's DRM was unacceptable, and now EA's is as well. Simple. BTW, reformatting the HDD will loose an activation in many Securom implementations.Makari

I don't recall EA ever offering anything even vaguely like Steam. I might have missed it of course. Unless you are referring to the original DRM proposed for Mass Effect?

That DRM was exactly what we have now, with bells on it. Limited activations (just like now), internet activation required (just like now), AND it would contact EA's servers every 5-10 days to re-authenticate the game. If it went without contacting the servers for more than 10 days, the game would just stop working. That was shot down VERY hard by the forumites, and got a lot of coverage on-line. Of course, I think they never intended to actually implement that part of the DRM, they just put it out there so they could cancel it in an attempt to make the rest of the DRM easier to swallow. It was a version of the "door in the face" technique used for sales and fund raising. You can look it up on Wikipedia.

If you are thinking of something else, let me know, because I can't think of any other recent proposals that got real criticism for EA. Now, of course, they could offer a pound of gold with every game for free and they'd get criticized, but that's neither here nor there.

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="mismajor99"]People had MAJOR issues with Bioshock, you obviously weren't over at the official Bioshock forums, wow. People not only opposed it, there were countless people that were having customer service problems, well documented in the months that followed. Bioshock's DRM was unacceptable, and now EA's is as well. Simple. BTW, reformatting the HDD will loose an activation in many Securom implementations.Royas

I don't recall EA ever offering anything even vaguely like Steam. I might have missed it of course. Unless you are referring to the original DRM proposed for Mass Effect?

That DRM was exactly what we have now, with bells on it. Limited activations (just like now), internet activation required (just like now), AND it would contact EA's servers every 5-10 days to re-authenticate the game. If it went without contacting the servers for more than 10 days, the game would just stop working. That was shot down VERY hard by the forumites, and got a lot of coverage on-line. Of course, I think they never intended to actually implement that part of the DRM, they just put it out there so they could cancel it in an attempt to make the rest of the DRM easier to swallow. It was a version of the "door in the face" technique used for sales and fund raising. You can look it up on Wikipedia.

If you are thinking of something else, let me know, because I can't think of any other recent proposals that got real criticism for EA. Now, of course, they could offer a pound of gold with every game for free and they'd get criticized, but that's neither here nor there.

so what happens if people buy these games, and dont have any internet???

will the game just not work, or stop working because there was no online registration or authentication?

just a question... dont flame.

so what happens if people buy these games, and dont have any internet???

will the game just not work, or stop working because there was no online registration or authentication?

just a question... dont flame.

Lach0121

[QUOTE="Royas"]

I don't recall EA ever offering anything even vaguely like Steam. I might have missed it of course. Unless you are referring to the original DRM proposed for Mass Effect?

That DRM was exactly what we have now, with bells on it. Limited activations (just like now), internet activation required (just like now), AND it would contact EA's servers every 5-10 days to re-authenticate the game. If it went without contacting the servers for more than 10 days, the game would just stop working. That was shot down VERY hard by the forumites, and got a lot of coverage on-line. Of course, I think they never intended to actually implement that part of the DRM, they just put it out there so they could cancel it in an attempt to make the rest of the DRM easier to swallow. It was a version of the "door in the face" technique used for sales and fund raising. You can look it up on Wikipedia.

If you are thinking of something else, let me know, because I can't think of any other recent proposals that got real criticism for EA. Now, of course, they could offer a pound of gold with every game for free and they'd get criticized, but that's neither here nor there.

Makari

Actually, Derek French mentioned 3 activations under SecuROM on the same page he announced the phone home DRM.

Link

Check the fourth and ninth posts. The first mentions the phone home, the second that he believed there is a three activation limit. Given that he's the technical producer, I'd think he'd be in a position to know that sort of thing. So, I'm going to stand by my statement that the original DRM proposed was the same as what we have now, only with more. I'm also going to stand by my position that it was probably floated as a door in the face technique, that they never intended to implement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

How anyone could compare what EA implemented with STEAM is absolutely absurd. It doesn't matter what EA proposed, it's what they implemented, and what they implemented is far worse for the consumers then STEAM. Another point against anyone who thinks EA can do no wrong, If EA wanted to mirror STEAM's service with copy protection, then they wouldn't have placed the added Securom restriction and limited activations within STEAM for the Crysis release on STEAM. Why would EA apply this restriction on top of STEAM's current system when THEY KNOW it's accepted by an overwhelming majority of PC Gamers? Answer? Because limited activations is what EA wanted to do all along(and Crytek as well to be fair, as Cevat has the same EA/2K/UBI mentality). EA knew what they wanted to do, their goal, and they are only listening now because they are getting a much larger backlash then they originally thought. They answer to their shareholders first, not their customers, and this is shown by example.

[QUOTE="mismajor99"]People had MAJOR issues with Bioshock, you obviously weren't over at the official Bioshock forums, wow. People not only opposed it, there were countless people that were having customer service problems, well documented in the months that followed. Bioshock's DRM was unacceptable, and now EA's is as well. Simple. BTW, reformatting the HDD will loose an activation in many Securom implementations.Makari

If EA implemented what they proposed, that's one thing but they didn't. What they implemented is far worse then what you say they proposed. They either did a lousy job communicating to the public, or as proven above, never were going to implement that in the first place. I'm not getting into Bioshock's massive meltdown on their official forums. It was a nightmare for 2K, and it drove many people into piracy. Limited Activations are still not accepted, and the only reason Bioshock gets love is because they finally dropped it. People actively boycott games that release with activation limitations, and that's EA's problem. People don't trust EA for many reasons, and by them releasing games with DRM that DON'T work, just further makes this an issue.

STEAM was massively accepted for many reasons. People never accepted Securom, and still don't. STEAM first of all is a service and shouldn't be directly compared anyway. The fact that STEAM accepted Bioshock with it's Securom over the STEAM network made many people angry, especially since no one was told before hand, just like Crysis this time around. STEAM by default was originally a problem because of the mandatory online connection, which was then addressed by adding an Offline mode. STEAM NEVER restricted the amount of times you could download a game, never restricted the amount of PC's you can use, and if you owned a game under STEAM, it would always be there. That's the appeal of STEAM that EA simply doesn't get, nor will EA agree with STEAM's way of doing business, even at the expense of sales because they are so bent on placing activation restrictions within their games. Crytek HAD to adhere to EA's DRM schem over STEAM in order to sell it there(they wanted too as well, as Crytek has that same mentality), and many people are extrememly unhappy about it for good reason.

Looking at both Companies, EA and STEAM(Valve), it's not even close in the way they view their customers and their attitude. With the EA download service, you have to repurchase your games after a year if you want to re-download them later down the line. EA flat out treats their customers worse then most, not for no reason, but they place into practice some methods that will net them more revenue at the expense of the consumer. EA damn well knows that hardcore PC Gamers upgrade constantly and will use up activations over the next 2 years. This is the difference between a publicy traded company that cares far more about their shareholders, while STEAM(Valve) are privately held and simply don't view their customers as thieves. EA isn't the only problem here though, 2K and Ubi are just as bad. Even more, STARDOCK is the real champion with the recent Gamer's Bill of Rights, and CDV seem to "get it" too. Here's an interesting short little tidbit worth sharing with EA:

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/41698/CD-Projekt-Publishers-Scared-To-Go-DRM-Free

yeah it sucks really bad, skipped out on mass effect, bioshock and spore because of it.Qwark161

Sure you did

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

so what happens if people buy these games, and dont have any internet???

will the game just not work, or stop working because there was no online registration or authentication?

just a question... dont flame.

Makari

granted when we buy a music cd, lets say dream theater... for example

we dont have a right to go around saying this music is ours (because it is dream theaters).... but the disk it is put on damn sure is ours..

just like on a video game, the game itself is not ours we didnt make it... but the disks they put it on are, and we should be able to install it all we want.. on however many computers we have in the home... (it is not illegal to make back up copies of a game you own... )

it is to sell those copies or start giving them out like free candy.... but if i buy a game, copy it onto another disk, put the original disk back in box, and back on shelf for safe keeping, that is not illegal... but it seems these devs think it is.

it is to sell those copies or start giving them out like free candy.... but if i buy a game, copy it onto another disk, put the original disk back in box, and back on shelf for safe keeping, that is not illegal... but it seems these devs think it is.

Lach0121

Maybe because it IS illegal to copy games without permission? (hence the copyright)

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

it is to sell those copies or start giving them out like free candy.... but if i buy a game, copy it onto another disk, put the original disk back in box, and back on shelf for safe keeping, that is not illegal... but it seems these devs think it is.

tjoeb123

Maybe because it IS illegal to copy games without permission? (hence the copyright)

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]

it is to sell those copies or start giving them out like free candy.... but if i buy a game, copy it onto another disk, put the original disk back in box, and back on shelf for safe keeping, that is not illegal... but it seems these devs think it is.

Lach0121

Maybe because it IS illegal to copy games without permission? (hence the copyright)

what do you mean by "misconception"?