DescentBB

So for all of you who eagerly awaited Spore so you can run out and buy it.....turns out you are not really buying but \"renting\":

\"In what reviewers described as \"a draconian DRM system\", the game can only be installed three times.\"

So you try installing it the first time and there is a glitch (or you screw up). One Down

A week later you are playing and a storm sneaks up and fries your HD. Two Down

Now you get to reinstall with your third and final chance. Lets hope everything goes smoothly eh?

That would be enough to keep me away from it altogether. Forget that.

Meh, it's a calculated risk - pissing off some customers vs. losing extra $$ via the oft-used practice of \"friend installs\" (*cough*piracy*cough*).

Frankly, I don't blame them at all for resorting to that method. Three installs is more than enough for all but the most unfortunate. Heck, despite two hardware malfunctions this year, the last time I installed a game more than once was Descent3.

EA lost me as a customer, not only for Spore but for Mass Effect as well. I highly anticipated MA and was really looking forward to playing with it, but after hearing of the most draconian Digital Restrictions Management implemented to date, ill pass.

How do they enforce that?

It seems that it'd have to be via an internet-based activation. If that's the case, I don't see why this would be a really easy thing to solve.

Gather basic hardware info, along with IP info, and make a determination for allowing based on that-

If the hardware drastically changes, but the IP is the same, or at least very similar, then chances are it's being installed on a second computer of the same owner. If the hardware mostly matches from time to time, then the guy's computer is fubar. If both change drastically, then it could be another person. So, automatically allow the first two, and keep an eye on the third.

We already put up with this crap from microsoft.... why are we complaining about games doing it?

I guess the other option (probably even better) is to do it steam-style, and make people log onto an online account to access the game.

It bothers me that it's gotten to this point.... if people didn't pirate and hack through securities on a massive scale, game companies wouldn't need invade on your privacy, or make you jump through hoops, or whatever, to try to force people to actually pay for the games that they're playing.

My money says that if you call tech support, and go through minor to mild amounts of pain, they have a way of allowing you to install more than 3 times. My money is also on there being a crack for it within a year.

I've been thinking that one of these days they're going to start shipping software on USB sticks, such that it's a lot harder to copy the information directly, and the read-write ability will allow them to log installs and such on the media, not the host PC. That, or they'll start shipping games with dongles. The prices on the hardware just needs to come down a little more.

DRM has little to do with piracy - it only exists to keep shareholders happy. Any rational company would've dropped DRM after trying it for a few titles: it adds additional costs at every stage of production for little increase in unit sales. But as soon as a company becomes a public corporation then rationality goes out the window because the sole purpose of a corporation is to make shareholders happy.

But getting around the activation limit is easy enough...

One game I play with an activation limit is Starscape.

You can easily get around the limit by e-mailing the devs a description of who you are, what name/e-mail you used to purchase the game, and why you need a new code.

Yeah, Windows activation can be backed up and restored for formatting a computer, just use the same product key and you can skip activating windows, log in to recovery console and restore your previous activation. Obviously doesn't work if there is major hardware change, but if you are just reformatting a computer or swapping a hard drive it is perfectly sufficient.

If you can only install this game 3 times before you have to buy it again, my guess is they are not counting on the game having a very long life span. Try and count how many times you have installed the original half-life since it came out, for most people its probably a bit more than 3 times. On the other hand I haven't actually installed a copy of Descent 3 in ages, I just copy my install from computer to computer as I upgrade, then run a couple registry keys to finish the job (only for merc). A lot of games can be copied around that way.

It's not a calculated risk, it's lunacy. The game was cracked before it was released. Every game that has been released has been cracked either before release or by the weekend.

Why is it that the people who crack it get to enjoy the game at it's fullest, while people who buy it get harassed, shut out, ignored and a broken game? What happens when such a game as Descent long outlives it's 'activation server'?

DRM has only, *ever* hampered legitimate buyers. It has never inconvenienced a single filesharer. Not once.

Every game I've bought I've had to crack or download a pirate version to enjoy the game. I have games that are still in the shrinkwrap because they have SecurROM on them. Before I buy the game, I check for the crack or illegal copy. If there isn't one yet, I don't buy it.

Why am I bothering to buy them in the first place?

I also tend to agree, the vast majority of the games I have are legal copies I paid for, however I have cracked copies for all of my games except the ones on Steam for obvious reasons.

Meh, I'm pretty much done buying new games. I've a new grand daughter to keep me busy.

They can have their little conundrums. That and spore never grabbed my interest.

snoopy wrote:We already put up with this crap from microsoft.... why are we complaining about games doing it?

In fact, we don't... Microsoft software doesn't have an install limit of this sort; there's just a 120-day period between subsequent activations where the online activation will refuse to work, last I checked. You seldom need to reinstall more than that, and actually 120 days has often been enough for me to install the same program on several computers. :] I know I shouldn't, but eh.

If you are unlucky enough to run into trouble with the limit, you can still do so via phone provided you have a reasonable excuse. So, while a little irritating to some, it's not nearly as bad as Spore. Even if I was particularly interested in it, I can't see myself ever buying that without cracking it.

When I buy something, I expect to own it. If the producer of the item needs to control pirating, then they need to use other means to do so other than tell me my ownership is limited. Put tracking cookies in it and if they see multiple users running it then prosecute those users.

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

Same with me. Some of my friends and I were waiting for the release but we all bailed out. After reading the reviews on Amazon.com (only one star out of 1800 reviews) and checked out what other people were talking about in respect to the copy protection it gave us the shivers.

The pirate has unlimited use but the honest person only three.

Not for me...

Bee

But PC gaming is so much better than console gaming.

This is actually why I play the console these days. :\\

[]V[]essenjah wrote:This is actually why I play the console these days. :\\

YOU LOOSE!!! Good day sir!

Come on, folks. You're going to let a potentially good game slip by because it will \"only let me install it three times\"?

You only need to install it once to play it; since when is three installs not enough? And as has been said before, even if you had some major disaster where you used up all three installs before getting to play it, their customer service people are able to make exceptions.

[Note: The idea of shipping games with USB \"key\" dongles as piracy protection is probably what we're going to start seeing someday soon. That's what the application I'm developing at work uses, and it works quite well.

Which begs the question: when this happens, will you guys complain \"this key only lets me have one installation\"?]

Yup Foil, just like the other 30+ Pc games released every year that I don't buy.

Not buying a game because you're not interested or don't have the $$ is fine. I haven't bought a single game this year for reasons like that.

But not buying a game you're interested in and have the $$ for because \"it only lets me install it three times\" is ridiculous.

Foil wrote:But not buying a game you're interested in and have the $$ for because "it only lets me install it three times" is ridiculous.

No, its not. Would you buy a luxury car that stops running after three tune-ups?

In order for that analogy to work, the luxury car would be able to run as long as needed on a single \"tune-up\". (Analogous to the need for only one installation to play a game.)

And in that case, yes, it would be ridiculous to turn it down because of a three-tune-up limit.

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

Let me ask this: When Spore comes out on a console, are people going to complain that there aren't two \"backup disks\" (in case of disk error or breakage) in the box?

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

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.)
E. Other/combination of the above?

The point is that this is, at most, a minor inconvenience to people who are legally buying & using the game. I can't imagine that the 3 installs is a final, fixed thing. I'm sure they can give you more if you call them with a good excuse.

No, its not. Would you buy a luxury car that stops running after three tune-ups?

It's more like this: you buy your luxury car, and they say they'll replace it for you, twice, if you lose it, crash it, or otherwise cease to be able to use it.

I'm starting to side with software companies more and more these days. For too long computer users have abused & cheated software developers out of millions of dollars in the name of \"ease of use\" or what have you, when really it boils down to us having a sense of entitlement to steal their software through duplication.

If you look at any major, commercial, high-dollar software, you better believe that they monitor the crap out of their users- because they're tired of getting jerked around. Hence the popularity of encrypted USB dongles. On a multi-k$ piece of software, the $50 investment in a dongle is well worth it. When you're talking about consumer cheapo software, they're stuck trying to come up with software schemes so they can actually make a profit.

Let me put it this way: What do you think the percentage of the people who have any given popular title on their computer have it on there legally?

snoopy wrote:Let me put it this way: What do you think the percentage of the people who have any given popular title on their computer have it on there legally?

For oft-copied titles like Photoshop, probably less than 10%.

Software expressly doesn't come with warranties, you have no guarantees that EA will provide activations after it looses interest in Spore(and EA is the company that makes its living off yearly sports releases), or that a new patch would require the purchase of a new USB dongle. It doesn't help that software is overpriced.

DRM does not add any value for the consumer; we should actively reject it.

A solution of ever-increasing control is a bad road to go down. It's a never-ending battle with few victories, and the casualties are freedom, privacy, and convenience, for the innocent as well as the guilty.

Basically I take a much larger issue with anti-piracy than anyone would be willing to address (or read) in this topic. Ultimately I think the answer is motivating people to responsibly govern themselves, and that applies to all aspects of life (one of the reasons I support the death penalty).

I'm sympathetic to the software industry with regard to piracy, so I put up with a lot of anti-piracy measures if I want to purchase a game, anymore, but when a company blatantly steps on my toes, as an honest customer by imposing such an unreasonable restriction, I will draw the line, personally, and not support their decision (I was interested in the Spore Creature Creator). Unless of course the price matches the license level, in which case I'll just be peeved that they won't just sell it to me and have done.

It occurs to me that this tactic may be targeted more specifically at people who sell cloned CDs + keys as the real thing.

Foil: I would purchase a game that used a security dongle, provided it was important enough to me (I don't like the idea of having 50 dongles laying around from all of the games and software I own).

Like I said, though, I think anti-piracy measures are an integral mistake.

But not buying a game you're interested in and have the $$ for because \"it only lets me install it three times\" is ridiculous.

No, it is ridiculous, because when I buy a game there is an expectation that I \"own\" it to the point that I can install it as many the hell times as I want to on my computer as I feel like it, not what a suit decides at a corrupt corporation. Outside of piracy, it is none of your damn business how or what I do to the game once it’s purchased.

I install and uninstall games all the time depending on when I get the inkling to play them. When I’m done with a game, I uninstall. Why do I do this? None of your business! If you restrict the number of times I use a product I will not buy, its up to me how many times I may install a product.

People are standing up because they will not tolerate fascist tactics of dictating to their customers how many times they may use their product. At no point is EA obligated to grant you any graces once your 3 installs are up, or as is often the case, a false positive rears its head and you end up with a $50 dollar coaster. It has happened in the past and it won’t be the last in such cases.

fliptw wrote:It doesn't help that software is overpriced.

DRM does not add any value for the consumer...

It adds consumer value if it helps keep the price of that "overpriced" software down.

Q. Why do you think software companies are resorting to methods like limited-installs and USB-dongles, when they know consumers don't always like it?

A. Because the loss from hacked/pirated copies outweighs the loss of customers who don't like the protection methods. (I work for a company who went to USB dongles a couple of years ago, for this very reason.)


If you want to boycott software on principle, that's fine. However, if you copy/hack/distribute it because you don't like the protection methods the company uses, it's not only ethically wrong, you're adding to the reason the software companies have to resort to those methods.

fliptw wrote:Would you buy a luxury car that stops running after three tune-ups?

Foil wrote:In order for that analogy to work, the luxury car would be able to run as long as needed on a single "tune-up". (Analogous to the need for only one installation to play a game.)

And in that case, yes, it would be ridiculous to turn it down because of a three-tune-up limit.

It's more like buying a luxury car that will only work for 3 houses.

Who moves 3 times before their car dies, though, right? Let's hope you don't have a summer home, because then you only get to move once.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's more like buying a luxury car that will only work for 3 houses.

Okay, that's a little better analogy. But to be more accurate, copies of the car can be installed at multiple houses.

Thus, the reason that the car company restricted it to three houses is that people have been abusing this fact for ages, making copies of their BMWs for friends and neighbors.



[In this case, granting three cars for a single purchase doesn't seem so stingy, does it? It sucks for the people who move really often, but it's not really the car company's fault - it's ultimately due to the people who continue to abuse the system.]

OMG, I need to install it for a 4th time in under 1 year.....
OMG, I have to pick the phone and make a call to get the serial reset.....
OMG, they are sooo evil....making my life hard for reinstalling the same game 3x's in 1 year
OMG, I'm going to jail for piracy...
OMG.....ZOMG

Frack it, this game is too much of a burden because it would take less time getting it reset than actually making this post....

Top Wop wrote:

But not buying a game you're interested in and have the $$ for because "it only lets me install it three times" is ridiculous.

No, it is ridiculous, because when I buy a game there is an expectation that I "own" it to the point that I can install it as many the hell times as I want to on my computer as I feel like it, not what a suit decides at a corrupt corporation. Outside of piracy, it is none of your damn business how or what I do to the game once it’s purchased.

I install and uninstall games all the time depending on when I get the inkling to play them. When I’m done with a game, I uninstall. Why do I do this? None of your business! If you restrict the number of times I use a product I will not buy, its up to me how many times I may install a product.

People are standing up because they will not tolerate fascist tactics of dictating to their customers how many times they may use their product. At no point is EA obligated to grant you any graces once your 3 installs are up, or as is often the case, a false positive rears its head and you end up with a $50 dollar coaster. It has happened in the past and it won’t be the last in such cases.

x2!

I regularly uninstall games to make space, as my hard drive can get crammed up. I have had to reinstall several games because they did not install correctly.

DRM is just a control thing. I am being treated like a criminal because a few people do it. Do you honestly think a motivated pirate could not get past this? They can, but I can't. Nearly 1/5th of my music library won't play because of copy protection going haywire. EA Games still ★■◆●ing owes me $240 worth of PC games that do not work, and they treat me like I am going to do something wrong? I have only made copies of two games, and I have never stolen a game (excluding the files for Descent 2: Vertigo).

Dakatsu wrote:DRM is just a control thing. I am being treated like a criminal because a few people do it.

All of China for starters is "just a few"?

Dakatsu wrote:I have only made copies of two games, and I have never stolen a game (excluding the files for Descent 2: Vertigo).

oh just 2 plus a little sumthin sumthin

Pirates can play all the single player they want... but when it comes to any online content... go buy it... that's the point

BUBBALOU wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:DRM is just a control thing. I am being treated like a criminal because a few people do it.

just a few?

These guys treat us like 50% of the population pirates games, when, more realistically, MAYBE 5%, if not much less, pirate anything. Like I said, if someone really wants to pirate a game, it isn't too hard for them. For the regular person, have fun with your limited rights.

Dakatsu wrote:I have only made copies of two games, and I have never stolen a game (excluding the files for Descent 2: Vertigo).

oh just 2 plus a little sumthin sumthin[/quote]
I made copies of Descent I and II and Starcraft. I gave the Descents to my girlfriend, and I used starcraft to play a LAN once. I obtained the Vertigo files because I can't exactly go to the store and obtain a copy, was not able to find any on eBay, and like it hurt Interplay, especially because they were non-existant in 2007.

Foil wrote:In this case, granting three cars for a single purchase doesn't seem so stingy, does it?

...

Taking the analogy a little far when you try to make me feel good about only being able to install a game I purchased at full price 3 times. 3 for 1 is a good deal... at the supermarket. We've never purchased games on an installation level before. Try 3 for the price of 10. Doesn't sound so good anymore, does it? To qualify that, assuming this is only an anti-piracy tactic, which it almost certainly is, it can't really be compared with something like a rental. It is a full product, but one that I'm most likely going to have difficulty using in the future, and if the company goes under (not likely) I won't be able to use it at all.

So you can call support to get it installed, after the 3rd time. Obviously Bubbalou doesn't mind that. (may his system crash continuously in the event that he buys it ) Pain in the ***? Why should they believe me?

Are you arguing for this because you believe it's better than previous anti-piracy measures, Foil?

Edit: Dakatsu, I would be willing to bet that 50% isn't too far off. Most of the people on this BB probably pirate music and/or software.

Myself, I use to install a single copy of a game to different computers on the network at home and play family games, until maybe 8 years ago ,or so, when we decided we should abide by the license agreement (I still think they ought to make exceptions for families ).

BUBBALOU wrote:OMG, I need to install it for a 4th time in under 1 year.....
OMG, I have to pick the phone and make a call to get the serial reset.....
OMG, they are sooo evil....making my life hard for reinstalling the same game 3x's in 1 year
OMG, I'm going to jail for piracy...
OMG.....ZOMG

Frack it, this game is too much of a burden because it would take less time getting it reset than actually making this post....



admin note: edited by Lothar. Tone down the name-calling plz.

FAIL.

People care about their rights and privacy. Being against DRM does not automatically mean that you are a pirate. Get that to your head.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Are you arguing for this because you believe it's better than previous anti-piracy measures, Foil?

No, I think there are other/better ways of handling software protection.

I'm simply saying it's still a reasonable solution, as three installs is more than enough for most users. Of course, if three installs isn't enough for someone, they're free to boycott it.

It's the cries of "How dare they?! They can't control me!! They can't do that!! I own it, I'll do what I want!!" that I find ridiculous.

Software companies have the right to protect themselves from illegitimate use, and if they believe it's worth the risk to take protective measures, then they can do so. Obviously, they'll lose a few customers (a few have voiced their opinions in this thread), but they apparently feel it's worth it in loss prevention.

People may think it's stupid (I'm starting to wonder if the company is beginning to regret it, given the internet-wide hullaballou about this), but people in here claiming they have no right to do it is ignorant.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Edit: Dakatsu, I would be willing to bet that 50% isn't too far off. Most of the people on this BB probably pirate music and/or software.

I'd guess possibly higher. Most people I know, including nearly everyone I worked with at one of my previous jobs, are pirating at some level or another. Even some of the people I'm friends with at church regularly pirate software and music, and have somehow rationalized it as acceptable.

Interesting: Polled piracy rates among professionals
(I'd guess it's somewhat higher among teens and college students)

I don't know anyhing about copy protection but clue me in please.

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.

I think some software (windows?) does this already...

Bee

Top Wop wrote:FAIL.People care about their rights and privacy. Being against DRM does not automatically mean that you are a pirate. Get that to your head.

And you are where, using what by who, posting on teh internet?? come on!!!

I ride on a fine line between both worlds.

On one hand, I agree with the public that the X3 limit is a little extreme. I personally thing that you should be able to download or install it as many times as you need it and I believe that there is simply a better way. I install games and software several times a year and to have to explain it to every SINGLE company you purchase a product from EVERY time you install it, is a HUGE inconvenience. One game is annoying but if you have a collection... say 15+ games, Windows with it's own limits, and other software, you start to have problems after a while. I don't buy anything with Starforce on it and I don't buy anything with a burn limit other than Windows and really important software. If it has that crap on it, I buy it through Steam or I get a version of it it for XBox.

What we need, is some sort of really nice management software for the PC where the user is required to have an account that they can acquire licenses for, that can only be used once and can only be installed and accessed under that individuals name.

Either that or we need some kind of special disk that only game, movie, and video game companies can use that can be read only by a special drive of some kind that is difficult to modify.