[QUOTE="Makari"] 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.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.
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?
Alot of good points and things to think about.
My current viewpoint (always subject to change :P) is that this DRM is a gradual shift (in their eyes) to a service based gaming model, all according to plan.
Content delivery is still very prevelant via physical media (e.g. DVDs, which have some inherent advantages over services) and EA is wrapping even these games in a "service-like" shell that allows them to have more control -- via limited installs, or even worse disabling your game (no interest in debating the validity of the article, it's merely an indication of what might be possible). This control is advantageous to them, and games as services are fundamentally a better business model.
The downside is that although these games are being wrapped in a "service-like" shell, gamers are not getting many of the advantages possible if it were an actual service. In fact, where a fair share of the dislike of the DRM likely stems from is that most gamers feel they are giving up more freedoms (e.g. limited installs) than they are receiving (e.g. can play without the disc).
For a better balance of freedoms and convenience, and an example of games being accepted as a service, one only needs to look at Steam in it's current state (excluding games on Steam that additionally include SecuROM activations) and the fact that it is user-based rather than machine-based as you mentioned.
This is only my personal preference --- but leave DVDs alone from this "hybridization", until they are delivered as services, don't treat them as services via DRM. In addition, once the PC gaming industry is truly service-based, follow the exemplary path established by Steam.
Hopefully the real solution does meet somewhere in the middle for both parties.
Log in to comment