480 réponses à ce sujet

[tishyw]

Online registration for a single player game has always annoyed me, but this isn't as bad as Fallout New Vegas which made me install steam to play the boxed copy. God I was p***ed off at that, if I hadn't loved Fallout 3 so much I would have taken the damn thing back!



Incidentally, what does "ONLINE PASS SERIAL CODE EXPIRES MARCH 31, 2012" mean? It's on the EA EULA's site under the DA2 listing.

[the_one_54321]

tishyw wrote...
Incidentally, what does "ONLINE PASS SERIAL CODE EXPIRES MARCH 31, 2012" mean? It's on the EA EULA's site under the DA2 listing.

I believe this is related to all DLC freebees you get for preordering the game. As in, after that date they are no longer available if you have not already registered them.

[Loerwyn]

tishyw wrote...
but this isn't as bad as Fallout New Vegas which made me install steam to play the boxed copy.

I suggest you learn to read the box, then, or do better research on the products you're buying.

It's clearly stated on the back of the box that you need Steam.

[Amioran]

Catsith wrote...

Yeah..... good luck to them with that. The game is going to be pirated to hell and back.

And do you think DA2 will not be pirated (or less) just because it has online activation?

Catsith wrote...
No issues with DA2's drm, online activation is nothing.

True for many, not for all, and, sadly, doesn't actually prevent piracy, on the slightest. Online activation gets cracked very easily these days (it's one of the faster to crack by serious groups) so the only thing it does is to give less freedom to legit users. Piracy is not prevented, in the slightest.

Do you know why many producers use online activation as a form of DRM? Because it prevents day zero piracy, that's the worst form of piracy. They know perfectly well that the game will get pirated easily, however with online activation you prevent day zero piracy, and this is important, actually arguably the most important thing if you care about it to begin with.

Now the discussion is more problematic than this, however, since many DRMs that prevents day zero piracy many times hurt sales instead of increasing them, so in some cases the benefits are less than the drawbacks. So some houses prefer to simply don't care at all about piracy (in all forms) and just try to increase sales in other ways to overcome the unavoidable losses.

All in all I have mixed feelings about DRM. I understand both the Witcher frame of mind and the one of DA2 (or other companies). They are different approaches to resolve a problem that cannot be resolved, so you can only take a phisolophycally stand and go with that, hoping for the best. There's no real better way of handling piracy, since there's no logical nor clearly fool-proof solution against it.

The only thing I cannot stand is when a single player game becomes a masqued MMO (as in the case of AC2) with the lie of fighting piracy, but that's another story.

Modifié par Amioran, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:12 .

[coolide]

XBox fo lyfe

[FreezaSama]

Console version FTW.


Edit: Wow, it's funny how we had the same thought at the same time. :happy:

Modifié par FreezaSama, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Connect wrote...

Actually, it's the exact sort of thing that the DRM claims to do. At least I have read the EULA. I'm going to quote from it FOR THE SECOND TIME, because you somehow missed my previous post:

The technical protection measures of this Software may interfere with certain applications, such as debuggers, when such software could potentially be used to circumvent the access-control technology as
prohibited by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Two things are interesting about this.

First, DRM has experimented with this sort of thing before.  There have been games that wouldn't launch if you even had something like Alcohol installed on your PC.  Uninstall Alcohol, and the game works fine, but with Alcohol installed the game won't run.

Second, the DMCA only applies in the USA, so non-American consumers would, I suspect, really hate this condition.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Second, the DMCA only applies in the USA, so non-American consumers would, I suspect, really hate this condition.

I'm pretty sure the DMCA has vaguely equivalent laws in other countries.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

First, DRM has experimented with this sort of thing before.  There have been games that wouldn't launch if you even had something like Alcohol installed on your PC.  Uninstall Alcohol, and the game works fine, but with Alcohol installed the game won't run.

No more from a lot of time, actually almost instantly after. There are programs that blacklist Alcohol (or Daemon Tools or whatever) to prevent recognition.

So, as always, those who know what they are doing will have no problems at all, either using a simple image (so either no crack at all) with that system, while those (usually legit) users that don't know anything of the sort and just want to use an image as backup (or use an image alongside) cannot do so. Another limitation on the part of the user that prevents anything at all for not-users.

[Sylvius the Mad]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

I suggest you learn to read the box, then, or do better research on the products you're buying.

It's clearly stated on the back of the box that you need Steam.

That doesn't make it any less annoying or invasive.  Steam's conditions are far more onerous than anything we're seeing in this EA EULA.

FreezaSama wrote...

Console version FTW.

Of course, consoles employ DRM, too.  It's just the same for all of the titles, so you don't notice it.

The manufacturer examines your console regularly to detect modifications that would allow the use of pirated games.  The manufacturer forces you to connect to their servers with your gaming device (through which they can monitor you) to acquire patches and DLC.

Only Steam, frankly, offers PC users anything like console-style DRM, and that's why I hate Steam.

[elearon1]

This is pointless, it will take hackers less than a week to break this and then it is only the people who actually paid for the game who are going to suffer the inconveniences. DRMs actually *punish people who pay for the games* ... everyone else already knows how they'll get around it.



What is the happy medium answer? I'm not sure ... but I do know that just seeing the term "DRM" is going to hurt the game sales vs piracy numbers right out of the gate.

[magicwins]

Hathur wrote...

Bann Duncan wrote...

Hathur, why the hell are you changing my words?

I was quoting Connect, but made a booboo with the quote brackets fixed it

*will now spend a year dead for reasons of hilarity*

[coolide]

FreezaSama wrote...

Console version FTW.


Edit: Wow, it'a funny how we had the same thought at the same time. :happy:

Great minds think alike.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Second, the DMCA only applies in the USA, so non-American consumers would, I suspect, really hate this condition.

I'm pretty sure the DMCA has vaguely equivalent laws in other countries.

No, it really doesn't.  It's shocking, frankly, how different IP laws are in the US.

In Canada; for example, "private copying for personal use" is explicitly legal, and has been since 1997.  Parliament has introducd three different bills to change this since 2005, but none of them have passed.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, it really doesn't.  It's shocking, frankly, how different IP laws are in the US.

IP laws in the US are mostly to the effect of "bend-over-the-consumer-sorry-no-lube-for-you-daddy-likes-it-rough."

[Loerwyn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That doesn't make it any less annoying or invasive.  Steam's conditions are far more onerous than anything we're seeing in this EA EULA.

No, but it completely destroys the poster's point. To get home and go "OH MY GOD IT NEEDS STEAM THE WORLD IS ENDING" shows a complete lack of research or even common sense. If it was like Velvet Assassin, which has no mention on the back of the box, then I'd understand, but it's clearly stated on New Vegas' box.

[Sylvius the Mad]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That doesn't make it any less annoying or invasive.  Steam's conditions are far more onerous than anything we're seeing in this EA EULA.

No, but it completely destroys the poster's point. To get home and go "OH MY GOD IT NEEDS STEAM THE WORLD IS ENDING" shows a complete lack of research or even common sense. If it was like Velvet Assassin, which has no mention on the back of the box, then I'd understand, but it's clearly stated on New Vegas' box.

All that means is you won't buy it before realising the problem.

But the problem is still there, and it prevents many people from playing the game.

[TheTraina]

pitchblaq wrote...

Connect wrote...

5 PCs in 24 hours.

OH THE HUMANITY!!!!

... made my day

[Amioran]

elearon1 wrote...

This is pointless, it will take hackers less than a week to break this...

Less than a week? Are you crazy? It will take a group less than a day (if not less than 12-16 hours, depending on when they get the game).

Online activation prevents day zero piracy, that's all. It's so important that's the only thing software houses really cares about (if they are concerned about piracy in general), not piracy in full.

You can argue on the fact that to prevent a thing that lasts only about 24 hours a legit users have to abide to for a lot of time, but these are how things are. As I said they have to fight with what they have and when there's no real way to fight you can only come with compromises.

Modifié par Amioran, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:30 .

[Xandrar]

Amioran wrote...

Catsith wrote...

Yeah..... good luck to them with that. The game is going to be pirated to hell and back.

And do you think DA2 will not be pirated (or less) just because it has online activation?

Catsith wrote...
No issues with DA2's drm, online activation is nothing.

True for many, not for all, and, sadly, doesn't actually prevent piracy, on the slightest. Online activation gets cracked very easily these days (it's one of the faster to crack by serious groups) so the only thing it does is to give less freedom to legit users. Piracy is not prevented, in the slightest.

Do you know why many producers use online activation as a form of DRM? Because it prevents day zero piracy, that's the worst form of piracy. They know perfectly well that the game will get pirated easily, however with online activation you prevent day zero piracy, and this is important, actually arguably the most important thing if you care about it to begin with.

Now the discussion is more problematic than this, however, since many DRMs that prevents day zero piracy many times hurt sales instead of increasing them, so in some cases the benefits are less than the drawbacks. So some houses prefer to simply don't care at all about piracy (in all forms) and just try to increase sales in other ways to overcome the unavoidable losses.

All in all I have mixed feelings about DRM. I understand both the Witcher frame of mind and the one of DA2 (or other companies). They are different approaches to resolve a problem that cannot be resolved, so you can only take a phisolophycally stand and go with that, hoping for the best. There's no real better way of handling piracy, since there's no logical nor clearly fool-proof solution against it.

The only thing I cannot stand is when a single player game becomes a masqued MMO (as in the case of AC2) with the lie of fighting piracy, but that's another story.

QTF.

Allthough, AC2 (not brotherhood) seemed quite effective as it took a few weeks before it was fully cracked. But then again, Ive got no clue how much sales they lost on all the negative rep they got for such rigorous DRM. But I think crackers are now familiar with that once-new DRM, so I dont think they can pull it off again.

[Anexity]

Bare in mind that the EULA may simply be referring to the fact that you must go online to activate the DLC, not the base game. Which is a common practice with DLC, since it's generally a one time use code. DAO's EULA contains similar language, and you didn't have to go online if you only played the base game.



You shouldn't panic until Bioware or EA confirms/denies what DRM is being used.

[Costin_Razvan]

Do you know why many producers use online activation as a form of DRM? Because it prevents day zero piracy, that's the worst form of piracy. They know perfectly well that the game will get pirated easily, however with online activation you prevent day zero piracy, and this is important.

Online activation doesn't prevent jack ****. The best thing you can do is to prevent people from playing before day zero by protecting the game so that it cannot be played until a certain date.



That is how it worked in SC II. The Hackers did get a crack working for the game in a few hours after launch date, they could have earlier if Blizzard had not implemented a system that would not allow you to play game before the launch date.



I am willing to bet Dragon Age II will get cracked even faster then that. As for ME 2 piracy, well that game went on torrent sites with working crack 1 week before official release, and every single DLC was put on torrents on official release ( since hackers could only get those by downloading ).

[Loerwyn]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All that means is you won't buy it before realising the problem.

Uh... Yeah? That's pretty much my point. Complaining about Steam is all well and good, but if you've bought the game and tried installing it to find it needs Steam - and it says so on the box - then you look like a bit of a pilchard, especially if the mention of Steam is surrounded by a bright red box on the back of the case - Right underneath the specs.

I want The Settlers 7, but I've not bought it because I disagree with Ubisoft's DRM. I'm not, however, sitting on their forums going YOU GUYS R T3H SUXX FOR UR DRM. I'm voting with my money - and my money says "Err... No, I'm not buying that".

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But the problem is still there, and it prevents many people from playing the game.

I think you mean 'a small few with potentially incorrect opinions', rather than "many". If it truly was a case of "many", then it wouldn't have sold like it did. Steam's only a problem if you let it be one.