663 réponses à ce sujet

[SaddleTrampNC]

Some of you may not know about this, but here's a tool EA released sometime in 2008.  DAO is included on the list:
http://activate.ea.com/deauthorize/

/quote
Certain EA PC games with SecuROM and/or Solidshield digital rights
management technology allow users to concurrently "authorize" up to
a certain number of computers at the same time to play the games. Users
can then play the game on any authorized computer they choose. If your
EA PC game was released after May 2008 and has a machine authorization
limit, you can manage your computer authorizations using EA De-Authorization
Tools! /quote

Modifié par SaddleTrampNC, 28 janvier 2011 - 02:46 .

[Kloreep]

Connect wrote...

As if they wanted to fool us into pre-ordering a product blindly, without knowing the DRM, and then effectively making us stick with the pre-order (made without knowing the DRM), otherwise the bonuses are lost? That's something to think about.

This is exactly why I ultimately decided not to pre-order, when questions about DRM went unanswered as the Signature Edition deadline was running out.

You are too quick to cast it as an intentional thing. From what Mr. Gaider says, it sounds like it was not. But sadly, pressuring people to pre-order without releasing DRM specs is indeed what Bioware ended up doing, however unintentionally. My sympathies with those of you who pre-ordered if it turns out the DRM is not to your liking.

Connect wrote...

For those of you who don't know, Dragon Age II goes back to the days of Mass Effect 1, with online activations, authentications, machine limits, and the added "bonus" of requiring you to permanently tie your game to an EA account.

Sounds almost exactly like DAO and ME2, so I don't know about "go back." As you describe it it sounds more like "same as before," only this time, there isn't a corner where you can go and forgo all the DLC in order to opt your disc version out of the on-line system.

Edit: I just found the EULA excerpts you refer to, and it sounds exactly like I remember ME2's being. This sounds much more to me like a sign of things staying the same, not of them changing. The only thing that is not clarified by this is whether the disc version will now be adopting the same on-line activation as digital distribution, or if it will retain its own unique disk check DRM.

Personally, I'm resigned to there being some kind of DRM. I wish they'd stick to the native DRM of digital distributors/disk checks for discs, and leave it at that. But I realize it's probably going to be more restrictive.

I liked how DAO and ME2 at least put all the eggs in one basket (the EA account system), and how they used sane, windowed-only activation limits unlike ME1. I'm hoping it will be the same for DA2, rather than the pile-on of various DRM systems some games use.

Modifié par Kloreep, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:05 .

[StormbringerGT]

DRM doesn't bother me I haven't had issues with it. I suppose I'm lucky sucks for people who have had terrible problems with it though.



Not going to prevent me from enjoying what I think and hope to be a great game.

[Sable Phoenix]

Even though this article, transcribed from a presentation, refers to Microsoft specifically and has nothing to do in any direct fashion with the DRM that EA is including in their new releases (let's hope that Mass Effect 3 avoids this, or I won't be buying that one either, and that's the one I actually want), it does apply to all DRM in general and the philosophy and flaws behind it.  A preview:

Here's what I'm here to convince you of:

1. That DRM systems don't work

2. That DRM systems are bad for society

3. That DRM systems are bad for business

4. That DRM systems are bad for artists

5. That DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT

It's a big brief, this talk. Microsoft has sunk a lot of capital
into DRM systems, and spent a lot of time sending folks like
Martha and Brian and Peter around to various smoke-filled rooms
to make sure that Microsoft DRM finds a hospitable home in the
future world. Companies like Microsoft steer like old Buicks, and
this issue has a lot of forward momentum that will be hard to
soak up without driving the engine block back into the driver's
compartment. At best I think that Microsoft might convert some of
that momentum on DRM into angular momentum, and in so doing, save
all our asses.

Let's dive into it.

It's long, but it's very cogent, very entertaining, and very, very accurate.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 03 février 2011 - 10:04 .

[Oppopji]

*Warning: Wall of Text ahead*

Honestly, I think publishers are approaching the whole piracy issue from the wrong angle. They're so focused on fighting pirates, second hand sales etc. that they're damaging their own products and harming their customers in the process while the pirates just carry on as usual.

Publishers and their investors need to understand that no matter what they do the vast majority of pirates would never buy the game anyway - for example, people even pirated the Humble Indie Bundles. Those people could have paid just $0.01 to have a legal copy, yet they still chose to pirate instead! The best way for publishers to encourage purchases is to make legal copies of the game better & more worthwhile than pirate copies, by focusing on customer satisfaction & giving their customers the best experience possible. DRM does the opposite of that & instead devalues legitimate copies of the game: those who buy a legal copy are hit with restrictions and extra hassle resulting in a poorer experience while the pirate copy is unrestricted. The only difference is that pirates may have to wait a little longer (usually between a few hours to a few days after release) and risk having trojans, viruses and other malware bundled with their copy.

Look at the approach CD Projekt is taking with The Witcher 2: They are focusing on (and putting a *lot* of effort into) providing their customers with the best experience they can and encouraging people to buy their game rather than putting lots of effort into trying, ineffectively, to discourage pirates with restrictive DRM. To start with, look at the extras they are including with all physical copies of the game:

The Witcher 2 Premium Edition Includes:
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Game
Making-Of DVD
Official Game Soundtrack
World Map
Game Manual and Guide
Pamphlet and Cursed Coin
Instructions to Create Two Papercraft Dolls

Now for any other game this could easily be called the "collector's edition" and priced higher than normal, yet this is just the regular edition of TW2, at regular price! The Collector's Edition for TW2 includes even more stuff...

In addition to this they are providing plenty of avenues of purchase for people to would prefer to buy digital versions of the game. They have the usual options (D2D, Steam etc) and for Steam users in particular the Steam version will have full Steamworks integration: cloud saving, achievements, etc. On top of all this, they are also releasing the game completely DRM-free through their sister company GOG.com, along with some GOG.com-specific extras (a free game, GOG.com credit for EU buyers due to the US-EU price difference & digital version of the artbook from the CE).

“Being a player myself, I’m always surprised to see how many companies focus solely on preventing piracy instead of thinking about how they might encourage players to acquire original game copies. The assumption is that protection is the only way to prevent piracy, but a glance at any file-sharing site demonstrates that this is pure fiction. This assumption is also a good way to forget one of the keys to this business: taking good care of your customers"
- Marcin Iwinski, CEO of CD Projekt and head of gog.com.

“Our aim is to produce games that provide the best and most satisfying playing experience. Copyright protection can’t stand in the way of that. Especially since it makes life difficult for players who acquire legal game copies, that is, those to whom we owe our greatest respect. Paradoxically, those who play pirated copies usually do not face the same impediments. In our view, aggressive attempts at stopping piracy are less important than ensuring that the relation between game price, game quality, and any additional services offered in connection with a game are favorable enough to encourage players to reach for original game copies.”
- Adam Kicinski, CEO of CD Projekt RED.

This isn't to say they don't care about piracy, though - just that they don't see any point in punishing their customers with DRM that will do next to nothing to prevent piracy. It's a shame Bioware/EA aren't following a similar strategy (although of course I'd never expect them to go DRM-free... but they could at least stick to a relatively relaxed scheme like they used with DA:O and ME2).

[slimgrin]

EA has a long way to go in regard to DRM, and now they have taken another step back.

I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing indie games popping up on GoG in the next couple of years and it wouldn't surprise me either if another major publisher takes the plunge.

This is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to TW2, as its basically an experiment in the industry.

Modifié par slimgrin, 04 février 2011 - 07:43 .

[In Exile]

Oppopji wrote...
Publishers and their investors need to understand that no matter what they do the vast majority of pirates would never buy the game anyway - for example, people even pirated the Humble Indie Bundles. Those people could have paid just $0.01 to have a legal copy, yet they still chose to pirate instead!

Just one thing to point out: this does not neccesarily lead to the inference that you want, i.e. that pirates will not pay full price no matter what. Rather, it suggests that people will look to avoid paying full price. What a company who wants DRM will argue is that some level of copy protection will make some of these people buy the game when they would have otherwise pirated it, and that gain in sales will outweight their loss from the DRM itself.

[Oppopji]

In Exile wrote...

Just one thing to point out: this does not neccesarily lead to the inference that you want, i.e. that pirates will not pay full price no matter what. Rather, it suggests that people will look to avoid paying full price.

They weren't asking for full price though, they were giving people the opportunity to pay whatever they want - from $0.01 to whatever - and yet some still chose to pirate instead. That suggests to me that they'd look to avoid paying anything at all.

What a company who wants DRM will argue is that some level of copy protection will make some of these people buy the game when they would have otherwise pirated it, and that gain in sales will outweight their loss from the DRM itself.

I'm certain it does make *some* people buy the game instead of pirating, however these people will for the most part be computer-illiterate people trying to make copies of the game for their friends and family, and perhaps opportunist 'impatient pirates' (although with the prevalence of digital distribution now there shouldn't be any 'impatient pirates'). A disc check is generally enough to prevent those but anything more than that is counterproductive.

Modifié par Oppopji, 04 février 2011 - 08:03 .

[Seifz]

Did the moderators purge the last 30 pages of this thread or is something broken?

[coolide]

Yes

[coolide]

LiamN7 wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Did the moderators purge the last 30 pages of this thread or is something broken?

This is a different thread. The other was closed.
I still wont put up with any drm that requires internet access for my single player game.  Just not gonna do it.

Why?

[Royas]

SaddleTrampNC wrote...

Folks, I may be way off base here...but anyways. All of you have devoted some time in commenting about DRM, and some with very valid points both for and against. But here's the thing see. Everyone...hmmmmmm...almost everyone knows it's not Bioware that's writing the DRM on the disk. It's not Bioware that even come up with DRM clauses. You know it's EA. With that knowledge, don't you really think that all this would be more worth your time and effort in the right forum?? Say for instance, EA?? I doubt seriously, no matter how brave David, Mike and the rest of the Bioware team are, they're not going to break down EA's doors while waving their "Down with DRM" banners and demand anything of EA. But perhaps voicing your concerns over in the EA forum may get you more results than voicing them here. If you're going to complain of something, then do it where it will do you the most good and where you'll have a better chance (tho' somewhat slim it may be) of getting something done about it. With all that said, myself, I'm totally and wholeheartedly against any form of DRM as it's a waste of money on all sides and doesn't gain anyone anything. Just sayin'....(engaging shields and barriers)...

Bioware is EA now.  The bosses at Bioware are VP's at EA.  EA signs the paychecks and makes all the decisions.  Even the folks at Bioware have said this much.  It was either Chris Priestly or Stan Woo who said that they were the same company now, back during the discussion about the DRM on Mass Effect.  You can't exonerate Bioware and pass the blame to EA, it's all one and the same company now.  Bioware is just a studio of EA.

This DRM as described is very similar to the DRM proposed for Mass Effect originally, a form of DRM that caused a firestorm of protests on the forums.  The phone home idea was floated then, and wasn't well received.  How is it that this is now ok for so many people?  It was an outrageous idea then (to the point that many people, including me, believed it was an outright lie as a "foot in the door" technique to get us to accept the DRM they ended up with) and it's an outrageous idea now.  And BioEA and everyone working for them should be ashamed of themselves for having anything to do with such a control scheme.  By that I mean every developer, every artist and even the cleaning lady.  Shame on all of you.

[Stanley Woo]

How dare some people form their own opinions and disagree with you, Royas?

[koshiee]

i'm confused. Do you need to be connected to the internet every time you start the game?

i agree with people who are saying DRM only hurts the people who actually buy the game. If you know enough to be able to pirate the game then you know enough to bypass DRM.

[koshiee]

also, i don't like being forced to link my game to an EA account. Not everybody loves to have their game activity tracked and posted online.

[koshiee]

LiamN7 wrote...

koshiee wrote...

i'm confused. Do you need to be connected to the internet every time you start the game?
i agree with people who are saying DRM only hurts the people who actually buy the game. If you know enough to be able to pirate the game then you know enough to bypass DRM.

You wont need to connect everytime. When you first install  and it will want to phone home every so often. You have to link the game to an account also.

does that mean i have to periodically log back in to play the game? 
that might be a deal breaker for me. 

Modifié par koshiee, 04 février 2011 - 11:50 .

[slimgrin]

Modifié par slimgrin, 05 février 2011 - 05:49 .

[JigPig]

I do support developers attempting to use methods to combat pirates.

I do not support having to used a cracked EXE in order to play a game that I purchased retail.

[berkos2]

using this kind of DRM is beyond me, really! You cant give "its about first week sales" because the game will get cracked and shared on the same day it hits the stores if not earlier, and pulling this, only motivates hacker scene to do it more quickly. Not only that but i bet you, with this you actually turned some potential customers into pirates.You dont remember SPORE by any chance?

As for me, and many people who reason like me, when i buy something want to play it whenever i
want, this is basicly fancy way of renting a game, and im not ok with it. Do you really think this will generate any monetary gain, cmon...

i must add alternative, say what would happen, if you put simple disc check, the game will be pirated the same way as it would with intrusive drm, but you wouldnt have full 60pages of people who are disappointed in this.

Modifié par berkos2, 05 février 2011 - 01:08 .

[Deadmac]

Its all about package design (packaging products) to inform consumers at check-out time...

Out of all the forms of communication that have been affected by the internet, informative package design has taken a major hit in the last ten years. I should know. As someone who is a professional designer, I have gone to great lengths to study human psychology. Why? It allows me to understand how people behave, so I can develop advertising in an affective manner. It is my job as a designer to develop advertising, which is simple, informative, and attractive. If anything is missing from the schema, the marketing piece in question fails to deliver.

After reading the posts made by BioWare representatives, I can tell right away they are not educated in advertising. Since their field of study does not cover graphic/web design, communication, and psychology, I can understand why there is a misunderstanding. Not everyone is educated in such techniques. That is okay.

When people arrive at a store (online or real-life), they browse through hundreds of descriptions and products. Consumers buy merchandise on the fly, or while under the influence of spontaneous spending. People are not interested in what it has to say online, for they believe the package will tell them all the details. It has been this way for decades, and it will be this way for several more decades. Even though the location of the store changes from offline to online, people still depend upon an item's description 'at check-out' time. If any information is missing from the description at check-out, the consumer is not making an informative description. Other words, online stores should have item descriptions that reflect what is found at the product's site, so that the consumer can make a more conscious decision. Its all about getting 'impulse' buyers the information they need 'right there and then'. Its not a new concept. It a very-very old concept.

How many people do you think will buy this game at a local BestBuy, and they will do so without having known about the DRM? The majority. As a result of not having informative packaging descriptions, BioWare (and many other game companies) will always have consumer backlash or anger. As a result of this whole mess, pc game consumers will lose out because they cannot return open software.

Something seriously needs to change.

Modifié par Deadmac, 05 février 2011 - 01:23 .

[berkos2]

yes deadmac but i think their sole purpose with this is to drive used games stores out buissines i cant think of any reason why they are doing this other than that.