DescentBB

Foil wrote:Edit: For those of you who vehemently oppose this "3X" style of protection, I'd like to know why:

A. I expect to need to install it four times before I can play it.
B. I expect to reinstall it four times for some other reason.
C. I should be able to install it whenever, wherever, for whomever, and as many times as I choose. (I.e. companies should not be able to control usage.)
D. Game companies are big/evil corporations. (I.e. it's okay to copy/pirate/hack their product.)

Rights are valuable to have and protect, even if you have no immediate intention of exercising them. For example, I find the right to run for U.S. president (when I meet the age qualification) valuable, even though I don't intend on ever running for president. If someone tried to take away my right to run for president, I would oppose this, not because I expect on running for president, but because of the loss of the inherent value of having the right. Similarly, there is lost value in losing the right to reinstall software N times, even if you never expect on reinstalling the software N times.

If I oppose this DRM in this software, I am under no obligation to demonstrate that I "expect to reinstall it four times." (Nor do I have to think that I "should be able to install it whenever, wherever, for whomever"...) There is a very simple reason to oppose it. It takes away a right that has inherent value.

Foil wrote:Software companies have the right to protect themselves from illegitimate use...

No one thinks that companies don't have the right to use over-restrictive DRM. But sometimes we have the right to do things that we shouldn't do. The argument here is that although the company has the right to bury their software in DRM, they still shouldn't.

A couple of things:

How many of those people who use a pirated copy would ever buy the original if there was no pirated copy? Compare this to how many people will now not buy the game with the three install limitation.

Second, will the game box have splashed in large letters across the front that one can only install three times? Or will it not become known until after you buy and load it....like on the fourth attempt?

Reinstallation sometimes has to happen. Maybe you occasionally free up HD space, as many above has. There are other things; your HD crashes and you have to buy a new one, you install another version of Windows, you reinstall your current version of Windows to get rid of the crap that builds up (some people do this, some even every six months or so)... pretty soon you'll find those three installs are entirely gone and you can't use the game any more.

Now, I'm not about to say the company has no right to pursue this kind of copy-protection policy. I will, however, say it's stupid, and would discourage me from buying the game in the first place - and the pirates won't care a bit once a crack comes out! (I hear from other sources that one already has.)

So, score one for the pirates, and zero for the actual paying customers. Thanks EA.

Sirius wrote: I'm not about to say the company has no right to pursue this kind of copy-protection policy. I will, however, say it's stupid, and would discourage me from buying the game in the first place - and the pirates won't care a bit once a crack comes out!

And do you use a Microsoft Product?

what happens when you reach your limit of activations.... do you cry and throw your hands up in the air.....so unfair.

No, you get on the phone with the attitude
"I own this blah blah".....
"I had user issues"....
Now give me a phone activation or reset my key!
Thank You
After the call is done... you feel satisfied and so does the software company

------------

Basically PC software protection is boiling down to what they can do....

Ring0 access (evil)

or

online activation/verification-tracking(nuisance)

Both achieve the same result with very different approaches.

I would rather take lesser of the 2 evils than allow Ring0 access to my Computer.

So to those who do not purchase the software and sit in forums crying about how unjust it is.... booohooo

Bet51987 wrote:Why couldn't Spore "see" the two computers I want to load it on and if I want to reload it, it checks to see if the hardware is the same or close to it. It would then allow you to reload as many times as you want.

It certainly could. That kind of protection carries a couple of cavéats for both the user and software company, though:

The database of hardware profiles would have to be kept and maintained somewhere online by the software company. That's not a simple thing, and it can be an expense the company is not willing to have long-term.

More importantly, users would have to have an active internet connection either when installing or for some kind of verification process.

And what about users who upgrade (new video card, cpu, motherboard, ram)? Even the MS Windows verification process isn't always accurate in determining the difference between an upgrade and an installation in a different machine.

(With that said, I do agree that this would be a better method than the "3x-installs" limit.)

This kind of DRM is nonsense. You assume it cuts back on piracy, but I seriously doubt it has any effect. Prove these schemes have ever deterred pirates. Once pirates crack it, usually within days if not hours, you're left with end-users struggling to pass through a Draconian DRM scheme while pirates have a field day and tell all their friends about it.

It's a stupid system. Only an idiot suit from Starforce would see any logic in it.

The only success anyone has found is if the game somehow relies on the Internet. For example, it's reasonably easy to enforce on World of Warcraft since you have to log-in to play and therefore the servers are aware of you. Games that interface through Steam are the same way. It's not a foolproof system, but it is more fair to the end-user and it allows companies to actively respond to new threats if need be.

As for me, not buying Spore. The game was overrated and didn't interest me much from the start, but the DRM sealed the deal.

Kyouryuu wrote:This kind of DRM is nonsense. You assume it cuts back on piracy, but I seriously doubt it has any effect.

That's been said in here a number of times, but it's becoming less and less convincing to me, because measures like this continue to be used. In other words, software companies are apparently finding that it works, at least to some extent.

Software company management may be somewhat disconnected, but the market is not ignorant. If limited-install measures didn't work at all and only drove customers away, companies wouldn't continue to use them for new games.

BUBBALOU wrote:what happens when you reach your limit of activations.... do you cry and throw your hands up in the air.....so unfair.

No, because there is no such limit.

Sirius wrote:

BUBBALOU wrote:what happens when you reach your limit of activations.... do you cry and throw your hands up in the air.....so unfair.

No, because there is no such limit.

If you can show me where I can print that out from the EA site then my friends and I would buy it.

Bee

Foil wrote:That's been said in here a number of times, but it's becoming less and less convincing to me, because measures like this continue to be used.

I don't think that proves anything. The only thing it indicates is that companies like Starforce do a good job of scaring executives into believing they are the only solution.

Numbers, people!

Having to register the game online before activation occurs? What about people who may not have a internet connect? (assuming Spore is a single player game).

Kyouryuu wrote:Once pirates crack it, usually within days if not hours, you're left with end-users struggling to pass through a Draconian DRM scheme while pirates have a field day and tell all their friends about it.

But then, finding pirated software is still a PITA. Most of the end users I know find it easier to deal with the minor frustration of DRM than to find a "trustworthy" warez site.

For DRM to be successful, it needs to make it so that you can't just copy the CD and hand it to your buddy. That's enough to stop most normal people from pirating stuff. The true pirates will find a way around just about anything, though.

I've bought stuff that had a DRM scheme attached to it. three songs actually. The moment I went to renew my license they treated me like I stole the song and refused to renew the license even though the only thing I did was reformat my machine.

never again. I don't need that kind of aggravation.

Foil wrote:That's been said in here a number of times, but it's becoming less and less convincing to me, because measures like this continue to be used. In other words, software companies are apparently finding that it works, at least to some extent.

Software company management may be somewhat disconnected, but the market is not ignorant. If limited-install measures didn't work at all and only drove customers away, companies wouldn't continue to use them for new games.

Oh, but they are not! Ubisoft used the controversial StarForce on many of their games. People complained, and people wrote in saying why they wouldn't be buying their games because of that crap. Now they abandoned it and issued patches for their games that removed StarForce.

EA's foray into this extreme control measure will backfire on them, and unless they are complete and utter dolts, they will follow after Ubi and listen to their customers. Or, they can just sit there with a pile of unsold copies of Spore and Mass Effect.

This activation crap is getting out of hand these days. Honest customers are driven away, while the pirates just crack the keys/activations anyway.

Seems lose lose to me. Ah well, another game I'll avoid.

I don't understand these measures at all. This isn't going to curtail piracy, because one can easily get a pirate version of the game and play on cracked servers until they are bored and move on to the next game. In fact, I think these measures may actually encourage pirating activities.


P.S. A friend of mine has a pirated version of Spore and he can install that as many times as he wants. So how does this make the legal software appealing?

Top Wop wrote:

Foil wrote:... measures like this continue to be used. In other words, software companies are apparently finding that it works, at least to some extent.

Oh, but they are not! Ubisoft used the controversial StarForce on many of their games. People complained... they abandoned it...

Referencing the Ubisoft disaster doesn't prove that those methods don't work; it only shows that StarForce didn't work well enough for them to keep using it.

Maybe it'll be worth the risk for EA, maybe not. Clearly it doesn't prevent all piracy. But saying "it does nothing at all" doesn't make sense, because obviously EA has sales/research data that suggests otherwise.

I bought it.

And yes, if I enjoy a game I expect to install it more than 3x. If the limit is 3x in one year, I can live with that. If it's 3x in a lifetime, we're going to have problems. I can't tell you how many times I've installed descent series games, as well as some others, like Battlezone I & II, Homeworld 1 & 2, Unreal Tournament & the Half-life series. Some games just have legs, new mods keep getting introduced wellll beyond the actual publisher's expiration date.

Spore comes with SecuROM. If that's not a reason to not buy it, I don't know what is.

I had a perfectly running OS with 30-odd games installed. I'm talking nintendo emulators, Duke Nukem side scroller, Commander Keen, Wolfenstein, Doom(s), D1/2/3, Unreal 1/2, UT1/2/3, (Can you understand the sheer amount of mods/levels associated with *just* UT1?!) COD1/2/4, all of MOH1/2/3/expansions..GTA franchise. All kinds of stuff.. It took me about 2 months, collectively, to set it up properly. All the OS tweaks, the codecs, the drivers.

Because of DRM, I lost it all.

I had to go and backup the entire system, reformat, and spend the next few months putting it all back together again.

That's what is wrong with DRM. SecuROM/Starforce are evil rootkits that will ★■◆● up your machine good and proper. Also, did you note the age of those games? Think they would still be around with this obscene 3-install limit?

I have games where I haven't even opened the box. I got a friend to Torrent Colin McCrea's DiRT for me after I bought it. (Awesome game, btw)

If I see a game I want, I immediately check the DRM. If it has it, I check for the crack or Torrent. If I can not find that, or if the DRM is SecuROM...

I.
Will.
Not.
Buy.

But saying \"it does nothing at all\" doesn't make sense, because obviously EA has sales/research data that suggests otherwise.

It does nothing at all. I refer you to the 500k download mark as Exhibit A. Actually, what it does do is stop people from buying it, and turn more people to downloading it. EA has no such data to suggest otherwise. EA damn well knows they can't do anything about the games being cracked. That's what makes this so perplexing. The only reason for it is that they are using piracy as a smoke screen.

Smokescreen... for what?

If, as you say, this type of protection does nothing and actually hurts sales... then why the heck would they use it? (You're right, that would make no sense.)

A much more reasonable explanation is that despite the accessibility of illegitimate copies, it does work to some extent.

It may not deter experienced users, or those familiar with warez sites... but as has been said in here before, it likely works to deter many of the lesser attempts at piracy (e.g. \"I'm gonna burn you a copy of the disk\").

Noobs know no better. As P.T. Barnum once said, \"There's a sucker born every minute.\" (possibly paraphrased) They install the software NOT knowing the consequences of SecureROM or Starforce protection schemes. It's only later do they realize they have FUBARed their computer with NON-PLUG-N-PLAY drivers that are hidden quite well from NOOBs.

Foil wrote:Smokescreen... for what?

If, as you say, this type of protection does nothing and actually hurts sales... then why the heck would they use it? (You're right, that would make no sense.)

Built-in expiration date for when they want to sell you Spore 2 / 3 / etc.

Well if the 3 install scheme is such a wonderful idea, why are not all the game makers doing it? If Spore can still be cracked, then EA still loses sales not only of cracked copies but all those customers who want nothing to do with a 3 install limit.

woodchip wrote:When I buy something, I expect to own it.

Have you read the EULA on almost any software you have 'purchased'? Most of them tell you that you are purchasing a license to use the software and that license may be revoked at any time by either you or the manufacture.

That is of course true; most of those licenses have indefinite validity though, rather than running out after a few installations. (I'm not completely sure this is the way Spore works either though, I haven't heard one way or the other whether that applies to a time period only.)

Richard Cranium wrote:

woodchip wrote:When I buy something, I expect to own it.

Have you read the EULA on almost any software you have 'purchased'? Most of them tell you that you are purchasing a license to use the software and that license may be revoked at any time by either you or the manufacture.

For the manufacturer to revoke a non-limited license, they would have to show due cause and not just capriciously revoke it on whim.

woodchip wrote:Well if the 3 install scheme is such a wonderful idea, why are not all the game makers doing it?

I never said it was a "wonderful idea". In fact, I've said multiple times that I think there are much better methods.

What I'm taking exception to is the claim that "it doesn't work at all" (e.g. EA must be stupid fools). Software developers, especially ones with the resources EA has, aren't ignorant. If it didn't work at all, they wouldn't use it.

Whether or not you think it's ultimately worth it for them, their marketing/sales department clearly believes it does enough to take the calculated risk.

Foil wrote: If it didn't work at all, they wouldn't use it.

I disagree Foil. The depths of of stupid into which the corporate mind will plunge is bottomless. ... really.

Duper wrote:I disagree Foil. The depths of of stupid into which the corporate mind will plunge is bottomless. ... really.

While you are not exactly wrong, that door swings both ways. The general public is no slouch on finding new ways to be stupid.

To speculate, the smokescreen would be planned obsolescence. Appliances used to be built to last 20 years. Now you're lucky to get a year out of most of them. This is by design. Software is now running with the same baton. Since it's not physical, they have to break it intentionally somehow. Developers are thrilled to hear that person X is still playing game Y after 10 years. Management is not thrilled at all.

(The developers have no say in the DRM, it's entirely an upper-management/shareholder scam.)

Everywhere I look, I see people, knowledgeable people, saying the same thing. \"I will not buy\". This is the gold demographic too, 25-35 with plenty of 'disposable' income. Everyone has been burnt by DRM in the last few years, and everyone is getting tired of it. I haven't bought at least a dozen games I wanted. I'll just do without. DRM isn't working when it keeps people away from the store. DRM isn't working when it's cracked a week before the game is released. DRM isn't working when I can download the game with minimal difficulty for free, and have all the advantages the legitimate buyers surrender. DRM isn't working when it artificially raises the price of the game. DRM isn't working! The only time it worked was when you had to pick page 57, paragragh 3, sentence 2, word 6 from the manual. Until you lost the manual, that is.

Testiculese wrote:The only time it worked was when you had to pick page 57, paragragh 3, sentence 2, word 6 from the manual. Until you lost the manual, that is.

Oh, I remember those methods, too. (I still have my 3.5" disks and materials for the original Wing Commander, where I had to look up the range of guns and such every time I launched. )

Those were considerably more annoying protection methods, yet simpler to pirate (people would just copy a few disks, add a text file with the answers to the questions)... and you're saying those methods worked better?

Funny thing is that Spore set a new record for d/l the cracked version, 1/2 million times w/in two weeks. MAkes me wonder how that number would look like if it wasn't infested w/ SecuROM.

I don't install software on my machine I don't have control over so no Spore for me.

Better? Not sure. Who was going to re-type the manual, and what internet were we going to use to email it to everyone? It worked, back then. There is nothing that will work now.

Actually, there is one form of DRM that will work, work well, and not piss off anyone.

*No SecuROM, no must have cd in drive to play*

Day of release: Each copy gets unique code, like they do now. Installation takes your IP, a user/password you create, hardware info, and passes that to the auth servers. This info also gets passed when you play the game. If the info cannot be passed one particular time, game loads anyway (after 2-3 days, then it complains). If the hardware changes or the IP range changes significantly, or the key is attempted to re-register, then the user has to call the company. There are various methods to ensure that the response from the server isn't duplicated/hijacked locally. There are also various methods to ensure that the software is being installed from a CD, not the hard drive, and other reasonable restrictions to prevent casual copying.

6 months/year: All this restriction is removed permanently.

This will not stop the hardcore pirates, who will copy anything and everything for no other reason than to do so. They are impossible to stop. They are also in the minority. Bigtime gamers will not be concerned with this form of DRM because it's not invasive to the machine (a-la starforce/securom) and it is in writing, the EULA maybe, that it will be removed in due time. Casual gamers will not care because they are used to cd keys, and having to call maybe once to verify your user/pass, or a website, even, would not be bad.

I am 100% against any DRM, but I would accept this without a problem.

Krom wrote:

Duper wrote:I disagree Foil. The depths of of stupid into which the corporate mind will plunge is bottomless. ... really.

While you are not exactly wrong, that door swings both ways. The general public is no slouch on finding new ways to be stupid.

So very painfully true!

(I'm no exception to that)

HERE's an interesting article. so it would seem that it IS all about the Benjamin.

I think I'm done with gaming.

Well, I'm back from a break, and...

Wow, the majority of you REALLY don't know what's going on here!
1: It will only install three times IF you don't contact EA at all! And yes, they will refund an installation when you do regardless of how evil you like to thin they are; just as long as the three installations aren't actually active.
2: It does indeed cut down on piracy, because it completely removes all online accessibility of the game. And for those of you who have it will know that sharing and receiving creations is one of the primary big things about it. Yes, it can still be played offline, but without the incredible creations that can be downloaded, it's not nearly as fun. (And no, it is not possible to hack it to get it working online)

Now, next time I'd advise taking the time to actually looking up how these things work before forming angry opinions.

Testiculese wrote:I'm talking nintendo emulators,

Tip: When arguing against DRM, it's rarely a good idea to point out that you're a pirate.

And where are all the working nintendo's? Where are the catridges? What the ★■◆● are you talking about?

Also, from what Testi posted, the idea the DRM coding may screw up other games is enough to keep me from buying the game. I have a hard enough time setting things up just to have some protection gimmick potentially make me redo everything. I seem to remember some software I had years ago that enabled you to play a game without the disk being inserted. Everything was fine until I tried loading a game that didn't like the diskless software.

Should be OK if you run it under virtualisation. If that could be considered a solution.

Not sure this has been mentioned yet:

http://www.edge-online.com/blogs/the-gamers-bill-rights