But where is the logic in that? Why should the consumer have to rely on a crack to be able to use his game as he wants?



So, how many is too many? 2? 3? 7? Who decides the number of computers I (or anyone else) have at home and install the game on is too many?



Why is it that people who support this DRM scheme (or at least argue that it's reasonable) automatically assume that anyone that is upset with it is a pirate? Consider this: pirates don't give a fiddler's fart about this or any other DRM. They're going to be using a cracked and DLed copy regardless of the copy protection. So the question remains: why is the customer saddled with this?



How can you speak for others? Maybe that's true for you, but it certainly isn't for everyone. I've played through Baldur's Gate at least a dozen times, BG 2 slightly fewer, NWN1 8 or 9 times (can't recall how many exactly anymore), and NWN2 3 times so far.

Many of us are hardware enthusiasts. I'm not hard core, but I enjoy tinkering with my machines. I have one that's not connected to the internet (and I don't have a wireless network), so the on-line activation requires me to haul that one downstairs just to activate the game. My other (main) rig is connected to the internet. So there's 2 of my 3 activations. I upgrade fairly regularly on the connected (main) machine and move the old parts to the other machine. Upgrading is going to cost me my last activation on my main rig. What happens when I move the old parts to the other one? I have to call in. Then when I upgrade my main machine, I'll have to call again, with yet another call when I move the parts to the other one again.

Does that sound reasonable to you? It sure doesn't to me, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm a pirate.

And how many activations do you think EA is going to give me before they say "Too bad. That's all you're getting?" This DRM is totally unreasonable.

I`ve been looking forward to trying Mass Effect since I heard it was comming to the PC. I would buy it if EA stuck with they`re original 10 day check, I`m still going to buy it with this protection. I`m "assuming" that in the future when the games sales have run they`re course that this activation limit or the previous 10 day check would be patched out. Although I have been told that assumption is the mother of all f^%$ ups. This situation also makes me wonder what`s in store when Dragon Age is finally released.

I would be worried that if the majority of people think the way you do and say "I don't care, I'm going to buy it anyway", and thus give tacit approval to such a copy protection scheme, that you'll see the same thing for Dragon Age. Actually, chances are, it will be worse because the publisher will see that this DRM scheme will fail to stop the game being pirated, so they'll go for something even harsher and we'll be in a worse position than we are now. All I can say is, you're free to do as you please of course, but I urge you to vote with your wallet, make a stand now and say "No way."

It's what I'm doing, and believe me, I've been pretty excited about both Mass Effect and Dragon Age. But with this DRM scheme... no-can-do for me.

Of course I care. I dislike the protection as much as every other paying customer. This is a very difficult issue to deal with right now. Stardock`s sales are apparently doing very well right now with they`re approach to copy protection. I would say that valve is also doing very well with they`re approach. I have HL2, EP1, and EP2 installed right now. I of course would prefer not to have to use steam, I have given this issue quite a bit of thought. I came to the conclusion that if I have to use steam to ensure that valve continue`s to be a profitable company and a PC game developer, Sign me up. I`m willing to jump through this hoop if it means I`ll get HL3. I wish it didn`t have to be this way. I don`t know what the answer to this problem is, The thing that concerns me is continued PC game development. This industry is my favorite past time, I vote with my wallet by supporting PC games.

There is the truth. +1 karma for that



Who are you to tell me how often I should play my games? I purchased them, I play them whenever I want as often as I want to. If I want to play the game in 10 years I will. And I won't buy a game if I have to hope for the company to keep maintaining the activation server.
Just because you don't enjoy playing older games again other people might thing different. People like me for example. I still enjoy StarCraft and I still even play through the Monkey Island series (well, not the 4th part ...) every now and then.

As posted by Vinraith: I company that tries to rent the game to me instead of selling it will certainly not get 50 bucks for that.

I have mixed feelings on this.

I definitely don't like intrusive copy protection.

But I also have seen vocal groups bully companies into things that others might like (like mini expansion packs).

Frogboy: Could you explain that last sentence? Maybe it's just the time or that English isn't my native language but I totally don't get what you are trying to say

Vocal groups as in customers? When did they ever ask for mini expansion packs? And which "others" might like it?

The Sims.

Lots of expansion packs, there has been significant flak over how gay EA is for milking the franchise in such a manner. To some, and I haven't played any of them and have no idea what my own opinions would be, that method of introducing new content is an affront to their intelligence and must be squashed at all costs. They go around pissing and moaning when it's even suggested, it is assumed that the game is handicapped in advance to leave room for the updates, a purposeful exploitation of the customers. I figured they were just prolific code monkeys and since people kept buying them, they kept making them.

Listen to what psychoak said.

A lot of people like mini-expansion packs (I do). I want to make them too. But there are lots of "vocal" users who are opposed to the idea for various reasons who try to bully developers into not making them.

I personally intend to make mini expansions for all our future games. But I can put up with the complaining since I own Stardock and thus can make the final call.  But most game developers do not have that luxury and nearly every game I play I wish I could buy more content for rather than the current role of "one or two big expansion packs and that's it". 

 

An example of a good mini expansion off the top of my head is the Alexander expansion for rome total war. It added a bit of new content, specifically a new campaign for 5-8$

Is this a hint for the future of GCII? If so, I want your lunch money!

As for the Mass Effect thing, didn't plan to buy it- I won't even buy the Orange Box since it has EA's name on the bottom. That's how I feel about the way they do business. From now on, I'll only support companies with reasonable DRM practices (Thankfully, the genre I like has a good number of companies with reasonable practices)

Here's what I know about the DRM issue:

1. My computers die often. I've had this one a year and a half or so, and it's a major source of prayer.
2. I'm not gonna steal a game, but I do crack DRM's on games often enough because I can't be bothered to search through my catacombs full of disks. However, the tougher the DRM, the tougher I weigh the game.
3. I'm gonna buy an inferior (or inferiorly hyped) game before buying one that requires a second computer just to run the DRM software.

Here's what I've heard about DRM:

1. What you "buy" is more of a six-month rent in the case of videos.
2. It gets increasingly hard to accquire music and video without DRM (When was the last time you checked YouTube? Any movie pirating site? iTunes? It's not hard to find DRM-cracked or DRM-free stuff).

Here's how I know DRM is always weak or overly-heavy-handed.

1. Video capture, audio capture, and other "legitimate use" means are able to crack any DRM.
2. Any DRM can be bypassed, with hardware, cracks, and software (often legitimate).

Don't make me bypass your protection, because then I will.

 

DRM is the suck. W/that scheme, I'll probably still get mass effect, because I'll probably only be interested in playing it once anyways. Or maybe I'll wait till I get a ps3 and get it as a 'greatest hit' for 10-20 bucks a couple years from now. But I'll avoid spore if it has it because I might be interested in it for a long time if I were to have it, and the hassle of re-authorizing is just somethin' I don't wanna have to deal w/the hassle of. I'm an adult, I have enough hassle w/out having my video game hobby adding to it, and I'm definitely not gonna pay for the benefit of adding the things that hassle me in life, even if its a game I'd otherwise want. Plenty of other games out there. Console games, independent games, old games, and I just got an Amazon Kindle that is eating up most of my free time (aside from the personal computer, my favourite toy ever). Its bad enough Vista itself will give me hassle as I change hardware over the years, one such program on my plate is more than enough for me.

People should test this stuff out in courts. Local, state courts, under consumer protection laws. Different states will have different takes, but you might be lucky enough to be in a state that wants to protect your rights as a consumer. So the moment you run into trouble w/a game you bought in such a way, pay 15 bucks or whatever it is these days for a small claims court suit, you'll probably win by default since I doubt a company like EA would send a rep to your local court over a judgment of at most, a couple thousand bucks (more likely a couple hundred). In most states, consumer protection laws also provide for attorney's fees to the winner (otherwise what consumer in his right mind would sue best buy over a 50 dollar item, and what lawyer would represent him?), so go find a contingency basis consumer lawyer. Unfortunately, the biggest problem - what if in the future the company goes out of business and you cannot activate it anymore? No one to sue when that time comes, even if you would win.

Hey brad, here's an alternative and risky business model for ya. I'm drunk, so forgive how crazy it is, but it sounds good to my drunken self. When you are completely done w/updating one of your games, for the indefinite future that is, release the source code under a restrictive license to paying customers and maybe an additional nominal fee (5 bucks or so). If anyone makes anything w/even a line of that source code, they agree to pay you X% of any profits they make off it, if they charge for whatever it is they make (they can release their creations for free too, their choice). They have to house their creations through you and your site. Zero tech support for them from you, they have to know enough to handle it on their own. Pick some game you're not too worried about in case the experiment doesn't work and the source code gets a little too free out there. Perhaps leave an essential part of the game cooked and unalterable, that'll still require a stardock account for customers to use, and w/a call home feature so you can tell who out there is using it and make sure you're getting your $$. You get free expansion-packs/total-conversions keeping interest in the base game long after you've stopped working on it, all done w/labor you didn't have to pay for, plus you can 'borrow' all the really good ideas (put that in the license) a decade from now when you are making a 128 bit version of the game for 'windows bla bla', a platform for which all that source code will by then be totally useless. =>

If anyone uses my patented drunken style business technique and it works out, contact me and give me some good dark beer as my reward, I just ran out (and I'm too drunk to go buy more). =<

I have the perfect example: I have a friend, a sherif, 57 years old. He had to have an operation, and he way going to have to do some recouping for several weeks at home. So, I got him GCII Dread Lords to play during his recoup. When I came to visit, I'd watch him play, and we ended up pretty much playing this one LONG game together over many weeks. Anyway, his computer conks out, so I help him buy a new one. That was the LAST time we ever play GCII, because the game reads that his computer is different (a fact that freaked out my friend to no end, because in his generation, NOBODY had the right to come "into" your computer and look at stuff). Anyway, after almost a month of trying to re-register it, he gave up. The box sits on his desk to this day (I see it every time I come over), but he refuses to try to reinstall it again because he got so frusterated (and I REALLY wanted to finish that game).

Anyway, I love GCII, and Sins, and I understand the need for copy protection, but this registration thing has really been a far bigger pita than any copy protection I've had to deal with so far in my life.

Customers try to "bully" developers? What? How should that ever be possible? Do they drive to the developers house and toilet-paper it?
Last I checked people complained on forums about a policy they don't like. That hardly qualifies as bullying in my opinion ...

About mini expansion packs: I think they suck. So far at least. That's why I write on boards that they suck if it comes up.
The main problem might not even be the mini expansions.

Look at the whole piracy thingy for example. Pirates pirate software, honest customers have to endure the DRM crap for it. In other words: Honest customers pay for the mistakes others made.

With the idea of mini expansions it's not that different. My point is: Most (all?) mini expansions that have been made in the past sucked. Horse armor for example. It was a total rip-off and mini expansions got a very, very bad reputation because of exactly that. I as customer right now associate mini expansions with ripoff and tryin to milk money out of customers.
So now you as a developer have to suffer for the mistakes of others. Mini expansions got an aweful reputation in the gaming community and it will be hard to change that.

I have to, reluctantly, somewhat agree to that remark.

psychoak, you can, and encouraged to, call or Email the tech support under these circumstances. This will set you back a bit, true, but I believe it's worth it for the company that wants to limit you from installing on million computers.

Frogboy, psychoak's comment repeats the same exact iteration people are constantly posting on threads like this in general, and in this thread, specifically (with an added bonus of swears :P). Yes, it sucks, but I still believe it's the company's right to protect their IP any way they can, especially if the outcome doesn't require you to use a CD in drive to play. Not every company shares your model of business, man. You have to respect that as well. And no, I'm just a gamer, not a developer.

I fail to understand how the mini expansion packs have any relevance to this thread, though.

MegaVolt, who's me to tell you? I'm nobody, but then again, I'm not the one that tells you anything, since it's not my call, it's the company's. You know, the guys who made the thing, and want to be paid for it without you abusing their IP? They're telling you. All I'm saying is to try to understand them as well. I regard Stardock as the future and the solution to piracy, but like I said, sometimes this business model just doesn't work, and in that case, I sure as hell prefer an alternative that allows me to play without having the CD in drive, and if they limit the amount of times I can install their game for it, so be it, it's their call and I can live with that.

I guess it is linked with the fact that consumers, if they are vocal enough, can change what developpers/publishers are ready to do. When they want to put an horrible DRM scheme, it is a good thing. But it may not be a good thing if they prevent some developments that others customers may want. I think frogboy has the following articles in mind http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/309309/The_existence_of_for-pay_stuff_doesnt_hurt_you and https://forums.galciv2.com/307072

Gormoth1: Yes sure, the guy who made the game can do with it whatever he wants. If EA wants to charge 2000 bucks for Spore. If they decide not to sell the game but instead let every customer sign a lease on it they are allowed to. It's their game after all, they can do with it whatever they want.
But then they have to be consequent and stop blaming pirates for their complete failure.
Going around and crying "oh no pirates are destroying our sales" while simultaniously treating customers like criminals and delivering an inferior product - that simply doesn't add up.

But they do not let me sign a lease or a rental contract or anything like that. I buy a product.
Not too long ago it was even law that if you buy something, it is yours and you can do with it whatever you want. Sadly, the content industry was able to change these law with their stupid lobbying and now circumenting copy protection is illegal in many countries. But that doesn't change the fact that if I buy something, I expect to really own it.
I hope that politicians will get at least some common sense and correct these utterly stupid copyright laws (here in Europe at least some countries are moving in the right direction, see for example the Pirate Bay debate).

But as long as EA tells me that they sell, not rent, me that product I demand to be treated like it.

Actually it would be funny to buy the game (in Europe), try to install it 4 times and then let a court have a look at the whole thing.

Yes, a company has the right to protect its IP. However, consumers have a right to call them on their stupidity, and this is the problem- we don't do that enough.

All he should need to do is delete the sig.bin file and reactivate. It only ever becomes an issue if you copy the game directly from one machine to another, rather than reinstalling via SDC.

Agree with that.
Is this new DRM system going to mean less piracy and therefore they can reduce the price based on the supposed millions they lose from piracy not being an issue? This system wont reduce piracy, it wont help consumers, it wont bring down prices. They probably spend more in development of systems like this than they actually save from casual piracy, typical false economy.

I think that after purchasing one copy of game I should be allowed to run one copy of that game at any given time indefinitely. I should be allowed to install the game to any number of computers I want, but only one copy gets to run at any given time.

This happens to be exactly how online FPS games (e.g., Quake Wars) work, and it seems that the developers, publishers and users are all fine with this approach. The reason this works for theses games is they are exclusively online, and it's easy to automatically validate that only one copy is running when you login.

What bothers me about the Mass Effect and Spore DRM is that I effectively don't have an indefinite license to the game by virtue of the limited number of installs. I have three different computers I play games on (1 laptop, 1 home theater computer and 1 dedicated gaming machine), so I'm going to use my three installs immediately. I also upgrade about 1 machine a year on average. Now Gormoth1 argues that I won't be playing the game in a year anyway, and that'll certainly be true if the game sucks. However, if the game is actually good I'll play it for years. My current computer of instance has 1830, Transport Tycoon Deluxe, Star Fleet Command, Starcraft and Rome Total War just to name a few. All those games have existed on more than three generations of my gaming machine.

The real irony about the Mass Effect and Spore DRM is that I didn't really have a problem with the 10 day re-authorization, but rather the limited installs. So they got rid of the DRM I could live with and kept the part I can't. What I argued they should do is allow no more than three machines to authenticate in any 10 day period.

Someone will likely point out that with authentication the license is only as indefinite as the authentication server, and that's true. However, with an authentication server all users are effectively in the same boat, so if they take the server offline the largest possible number of people will complain at the same time. This is important because large soulless corporations like EA are only going care about users who already paid if there reputation is at risk, and having the most people getting upset at the same time is key to that. That's cold logic, but unfortunately true.

And keep in mind this game (Mass Effect) is planned as a trilogy. I know at the very least I'd dig out each previous game and replay it when the new one comes out, just to refresh my memory of the story as well as for continuity.

And while you all are lamenting the draconian DRM policies that EA are using, the console users are laughing like banshees as they take the disc to their friends house and fire it up - in the twelfth distinct X-Box.

I'm starting to see why my brother has been converted (and has been trying to convert me) to consoles. How much freakin' easier is 'put the disc in, push the play button, play the game' over all this doodoo caca?

True but how should a "normal" customer know that the sig.bin file is responsible for it and has to be deleted?
This might actually be a point to improve StarDock DRM a little. Like ... instead of not starting if the sig.bin is different it could just ask for a re-authentication or something like that (I assume it doesn't already since then their problem would have been solved).