663 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Maybe it's been brought up, but you can bet gamers will download illegal cracks so they can play a game they bought legally. Delicious, EA.

[Mage One]

@Coolide

That's not completely accurate. While it is true most people don't listen to CDs often on their computers, listening to CDs on a computer was never the reason companies put DRM on them. They put DRM that affected computers on them because they figured if someone wanted to copy or rip a CD, both of which are legal to do, they would have to put it into a computer. Said companies didn't want consumers to do either in part because they were worried about piracy, but also in part because they wanted to get consumers to buy their music as many times as possible. This hasn't changed, and computer use is more widespread now than it was then. The availability of DRM-free digital music and popular outcry curbed this, though. Today, more people who buy CDs rip them, put the digital music on an MP3 player, and connect their MP3 player to their home and car stereo then ever before.

Also, your internet question has been answered many times. I'm not sure if you missed the answers or misread them, but I'll do my best to summarize most of them here. Please note this is not the first time these answers have been given despite your asking the same question.

There are a good number of people in first world countries with incomes that allow for the purchase of games who don't have access to the internet, whether you believe it or not. There are people only have access to the internet on their telephone. There are people who have experienced connectivity problems (Such as myself when the hard line coming into the house fried somehow and the phone company took a week to fix it. Unfortunately they accidentally fixed it with a faulty part. Twice. That led to my having access to the internet for three days out of the month.) or regularly experience such problems. Many of us know such people personally or have been/are these people. Because of this, we can see many ways in which regular check-in can be a problem. As for how someone can post here if they don't have the internet, they may have regular internet access at work or school but not at home. Also, many of us oppose the idea from an ethical standpoint.

Modifié par Mage One, 18 février 2011 - 03:19 .

[tishyw]

slimgrin wrote...

Maybe it's been brought up, but you can bet gamers will download illegal cracks so they can play a game they bought legally. Delicious, EA.

And you can also bet they will patch it with every update, and might resort to releasing updates simply to patch these cracks. 

But talking about this will get the thread locked.  You can guarantee that they'll come into the thread to lock it, but  not to answer our questions.

[slimgrin]

tishyw wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Maybe it's been brought up, but you can bet gamers will download illegal cracks so they can play a game they bought legally. Delicious, EA.

And you can also bet they will patch it with every update, and might resort to releasing updates simply to patch these cracks. 

But talking about this will get the thread locked.  You can guarantee that they'll come into the thread to lock it, but  not to answer our questions.

I think there is a flaw in your logic there, but I'll refrain from elaborating, because people have a belief that a long thread can change their minds somehow.

[Eurypterid]

Coolide, you're dangerously close to trolling. People have legitimate questions and concerns about the DRM and want to get some answers so they can make an informed decision on whether or not they want to buy the game. Whether you agree with their reasons or not is immaterial, so I suggest you stop trying to stir the pot here.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

I was thinking of preordering the game, but I might pass on this. I'll wait and see.

[AlanC9]

LiamN7 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

LiamN7 wrote...

Requiring an internet connection at all for a single player game is enough reason for me not to get it.

Why?

I don't think I should be required to have internet to be able to install and play a single player game. Its as simple as that.

So no actual reason, just a feeling?

There seems to be a lot of this going on whenever we talk about DRM.

[slimgrin]

That is a reason AlanC9. That principle even comes into this dilemma seems to surprise many gamers on this site. So I would ask, why?

Modifié par slimgrin, 18 février 2011 - 05:00 .

[AlanC9]

Why what, slimgrin? I'll play, but which goal am I defending?

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

LiamN7 wrote...

I don't think I should be required to have internet to be able to install and play a single player game. Its as simple as that.

I agree wholeheartedly.  I'm trying my best not to cuss here, but to put it simply: You buy it, you own it, it's yours, you can play it.  End of story.  The internet should never have to come into play at all, especially in these economic times.  And don't get me started on the limits of how many times you can install the game.

[slimgrin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why what, slimgrin? I'll play, but which goal am I defending?

Some say deal with it, you have a connection anyway. Others illustrate that once you buy the game from EA, you should have the privilage of playing it under any circumstance. So is EA right in enforcing this, or are they being unfair to paying customers?

[Ravenvolf]

Perodic check in to play a single player game = I don't buy any of your games on any system until you get rid of this nonsense.



I was so looking forward to this game and thank you for ruining it for me, I can't believe tha Bioware/EA can be so stupid (again). I have a stable internet connection but I will never pay money to be ripped off so badly. Bioware has sold their soul to the Devil's arse.



Goodbye my friend.

[MDarwin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why what, slimgrin? I'll play, but which goal am I defending?

Can't you answer that?

[Eurypterid]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why what, slimgrin? I'll play, but which goal am I defending?

Slimgrin, AlanC9, this type of circular back-and-forth is not moving the discussion forward, and this looks to be nothing more than attempt to generate an argument. I suggest you leave off.

[AlanC9]

Eurypterid wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Why what, slimgrin? I'll play, but which goal am I defending?

Slimgrin, AlanC9, this type of circular back-and-forth is not moving the discussion forward, and this looks to be nothing more than attempt to generate an argument. I suggest you leave off.

Gotcha, but I figure I ought to take a position on the substance before I quit for the night.

From where I sit, this new DRM scheme reminds me of when game companies gave up on CD-ROM and moved to DVD. I think NWN2 was the first game I couldn't get on CD-ROM. I was somewhat annoyed by that, since I didn't have a DVD drive at the time and had no real use for one except that I wanted to play NWN2, and of course the later games that would also require a DVD drive. But for those players who did have a DVD drive, going to DVD was obviously superior. There were more of them than there were of me, and the percentage was increasing. While I would have preferred staying with CD-ROM for a few more years, I didn't feel entitled to things the way they had been.

If you've got always-on broadband, the proposed DRM is superior to the other methods kicking around. I won't even notice when the game checks in with EA. For players who don't have this kind of connection, the new system is worse, maybe -- between digging around for a key disc and using a dial-up connection, I'm not sure which is more annoying. But gamer demographics being what they are, I think Bio's entitled to base their DRM on what's better for the guys with the good connections.

Note that I only have broadband for about half the time -- the other half of the year I'm using dial-up at the moment, with no real prospect of changing that. So I guess I'll find out how annoying DA2 is.

[Seifz]

AlanC9 wrote...
From where I sit, this new DRM scheme reminds me of when game companies gave up on CD-ROM and moved to DVD. I think NWN2 was the first game I couldn't get on CD-ROM. I was somewhat annoyed by that, since I didn't have a DVD drive at the time and had no real use for one except that I wanted to play NWN2, and of course the later games that would also require a DVD drive. But for those players who did have a DVD drive, going to DVD was obviously superior. There were more of them than there were of me, and the percentage was increasing. While I would have preferred staying with CD-ROM for a few more years, I didn't feel entitled to things the way they had been.

You could easily obtain a DVD-ROM drive for less than $30 by the time NWN2 was released.  If you chose not to, you could still purchase a digital download of NWN2.  If you chose not to do either, you didn't play NWN2.  Simple.

However, it's a poor analogy to the current DRM situation.

If you've got always-on broadband, the proposed DRM is superior to the other methods kicking around. I won't even notice when the game checks in with EA. For players who don't have this kind of connection, the new system is worse, maybe -- between digging around for a key disc and using a dial-up connection, I'm not sure which is more annoying. But gamer demographics being what they are, I think Bio's entitled to base their DRM on what's better for the guys with the good connections.

Note that I only have broadband for about half the time -- the other half of the year I'm using dial-up at the moment, with no real prospect of changing that. So I guess I'll find out how annoying DA2 is.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that required an Internet connection is the only reason so many of us are opposed to this DRM scheme.  That is not correct.  Many times we have expressed other problems with this DRM scheme.

[Eurypterid]

AlanC9 wrote.

Gotcha, but I figure I ought to take a position on the substance before I quit for the night.

From where I sit, this new DRM scheme reminds me of when game companies gave up on CD-ROM and moved to DVD. I think NWN2 was the first game I couldn't get on CD-ROM. I was somewhat annoyed by that, since I didn't have a DVD drive at the time and had no real use for one except that I wanted to play NWN2, and of course the later games that would also require a DVD drive. But for those players who did have a DVD drive, going to DVD was obviously superior. There were more of them than there were of me, and the percentage was increasing. While I would have preferred staying with CD-ROM for a few more years, I didn't feel entitled to things the way they had been.

If you've got always-on broadband, the proposed DRM is superior to the other methods kicking around. I won't even notice when the game checks in with EA. For players who don't have this kind of connection, the new system is worse, maybe -- between digging around for a key disc and using a dial-up connection, I'm not sure which is more annoying. But gamer demographics being what they are, I think Bio's entitled to base their DRM on what's better for the guys with the good connections.

Note that I only have broadband for about half the time -- the other half of the year I'm using dial-up at the moment, with no real prospect of changing that. So I guess I'll find out how annoying DA2 is.

I don't think it really equates to the switch to DVDs (something pretty much necessitated by larger game sizes, and the greater storage capacities of DVDs), but I can see where you're drawing a somewhat loose parallel.

I think what you're overlooking, though, is the same thing that some others are as well, and that's the philosophical stance/principle of the thing, which is what matters to many of us. I have an always on broadband internet connection that's stable and rarely goes down, so (assuming there are no issues with the actual functions of the DRM) I likely wouldn't notice this DRM at all.

But I won't buy a game that has this type of DRM scheme. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is having been bitten by a couple of these schemes in the past. But a lot of it also has to do with what I call 'DRM feature creep'. Accept on-line activation and what do you get next time? On-line activations and limited activations. Then what? On-line activation, limited activations, and recurring on-line phone home schemes. Accept that and what comes next? On-line activation and permanent internet connection required (a la Ubisoft). Accept that and what's next?  Etc. etc. All of these schemes have been introduced, but luckily have not become the standard as of yet. I'm not willing to accept that this will be a standard requirement for a single player game with no on-line game-play component.

Theses types of schemes have too many possible points of failure for my taste, and the thought that I have to keep proving I'm an honest person who paid for my game just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. So I draw the line at recurring phone home checks (and limited activations). And I'm willing to forego any game that crosses that line. Will I miss out? Sure, but it's not going to stop life from moving on. It's just a game, and there are plenty of other games out there to play (hell, I've got a personal back log of games from GOG alone that will keep me going for months, if not years - and that's if I don't replay any of them).

Maybe many people don't think this stance is reasonable, and that's fine. I'm not willing to argue the point, because neither side is going to convince the other they're right. For the sake of clarity, I'm just laying out some of what I, personally, find an issue with this type of thing. And it seems there are others as well.

For those of you who have no issue with the DRM, hey, grab the game, play, and enjoy the hell out of it. It looks like it's going to be one helluva good game. For those of us that take issue with this kind of DRM, all we're asking for is enough information to decide whether or not the game is a buy or a pass.

[Raygereio]

AlanC9 wrote...
From where I sit, this new DRM scheme reminds me of when game companies gave up on CD-ROM and moved to DVD.

It's already been said that that is a poor analogy and not to dogpile on you, but I like to restate why. That is a hardware requirement - just like a graphics card is; it says on the box that the game needs a DVD-drive, so you can go and buy a DVD-drive. The only person controlling whether or not you're playing the game is you.

With this DRM you have to ask permission to install and play the game from someone that is not you.
First of all it's all useless. It does nothing to deter piracy as the only ones having to put up with all this hassle are the people that bought the game. On a pure logical level this sort of thing is offensive to me; who in their right minds would make their product deliberatly inferior to the pirated copy?
Secondly, if a game is good, there's a good chance I'll still pick it from my shelf and install in 10 years time. No one can guarantee me the servers required for this scheme will still be there. In fact looking at the history of the gaming industry, there's a pretty good chance those servers will be gone. What then? Sure, I can go a pick up a crack, but should I really have to?

The root of the problem is offcourse - next to inabillity of corporate culture to think logically -  the fact that we all don't buy a game anymore and haven't done that for a long while, we're buying licences to the play the game. Licences which legally can be taken away at any time. *sigh* We all sure fell for that one, didn't we? But that's besides the point.

Modifié par Raygereio, 18 février 2011 - 08:47 .

[muse108]

DRM and price are the 2 factors in piracy I find, DRM has become such a headache that its actually easier than what EA for example makes you do, and then theres price, sell Dragon Age 2 for 40 and not only will you sell more but you will have less piracy without as much need for DRM

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Raygereio wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
From where I sit, this new DRM scheme reminds me of when game companies gave up on CD-ROM and moved to DVD.

It's already been said that that is a poor analogy and not to dogpile on you, but I like to restate why. That is a hardware requirement - just like a graphics card is; it says on the box that the game needs a DVD-drive, so you can go and buy a DVD-drive. The only person controlling whether or not you're playing the game is you.

With this DRM you have to ask permission to install and play the game from someone that is not you.
First of all it's all useless. It does nothing to deter piracy as the only ones having to put up with all this hassle are the people that bought the game. On a pure logical level this sort of thing is offensive to me; who in their right minds would make their product deliberatly inferior to the pirated copy?
Secondly, if a game is good, there's a good chance I'll still pick it from my shelf and install in 10 years time. No one can guarantee me the servers required for this scheme will still be there. In fact looking at the history of the gaming industry, there's a pretty good chance those servers will be gone. What then? Sure, I can go a pick up a crack, but should I really have to?

The root of the problem is offcourse - next to inabillity of corporate culture to think logically -  the fact that we all don't buy a game anymore and haven't done that for a long while, we're buying licences to the play the game. Licences which legally can be taken away at any time. *sigh* We all sure fell for that one, didn't we? But that's besides the point.

You bring up a good point.  Let's say hypothetically that I don't have the extra cash to buy the game at launch, so I decide to wait, something happens and I end up waiting for years.  Then I eventually find myself in the store, happily buying the game.  I get home and whoops.  The servers to activate the thing are not up anymore.

[Raygereio]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...
You bring up a good point.  Let's say hypothetically that I don't have the extra cash to buy the game at launch, so I decide to wait, something happens and I end up waiting for years.  Then I eventually find myself in the store, happily buying the game.  I get home and whoops.  The servers to activate the thing are not up anymore.

To preempt the usual defence against this point. That defence being that surely the developers will release a patch removing the DRM. I already ranted before on how that's a completely unrealistic concept.

Modifié par Raygereio, 18 février 2011 - 11:21 .

[Tabak]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...
Let's say hypothetically that I don't have the extra cash to buy the game at launch, so I decide to wait, something happens and I end up waiting for years.  Then I eventually find myself in the store, happily buying the game.  I get home and whoops.  The servers to activate the thing are not up anymore.

That's a real concern with online activations and phone homes. The most recent games from EA have included the statement that:

EA MAY RETIRE ONLINE FEATURES AFTER 30 DAYS NOTICE POSTED ON WWW.EA.COM.

There is already a list of discontinued games here: http://www.ea.com/2/service-updates

It seems to me that everything is one-way with EA. We have to have EA accounts. They have our email addresses - yet they are not obligated to send out emails to notify us if they discontinue online features. Basically, we rent the right to play their games for as long as they let us access the games we paid for. 

[TaHol]

Very good thread. I just recently stumbled in DRM-nightmare, and there was not even internet involved. I was stupid enough to buy "Splinter Cell-chaos theory" from second-hand, and did not give a second thought to the fact it has plague called StarForce in it. So, I have Win7, and StarForce needed to be updated, yey, DRM that you even have to update yourself! Of course the update did not work, neither did I find ANY solution to make it work. So I never played the game. The game is 6 years old. This is what game industry seems to be aming for IMHO. Not to mention that StarForce itself acts like a rootkit and can cause serious problems to OS.



So, I have pre-ordered and paid my DA2. I will stick in to it, no matter what DRM it has. I want to play it THAT bad. But I'm scared. I don't have much time to play, and when I finally have a day of and decide to play...it can happen I can't connect to servers and thats that. No gaming. I can see in my eyes how I fetch a hammer and...on the other hands, my morals are quite flexible. I don't see any unjust in playing the game I bought but getting rid of the DRM. I don't want anyone collecting any data of my gameplay. I'm a very private person, and hell I have right to be. All this "needs EA-account" and internet-connection-stuff, it makes me feel very uncomfortable.



I definitely understand why CDProject decided to publish Witcher2 without DRM. The Witcher had serious issues with Tages-drivers, like disappearing NPC:s Damn folks were angry! Again, those who pirated the game played without worries, those who bought it and got Tages in their comps where in serious trouble.

[Morroian]

TaHol wrote...

Very good thread. I just recently stumbled in DRM-nightmare, and there was not even internet involved. I was stupid enough to buy "Splinter Cell-chaos theory" from second-hand, and did not give a second thought to the fact it has plague called StarForce in it. So, I have Win7, and StarForce needed to be updated, yey, DRM that you even have to update yourself! Of course the update did not work, neither did I find ANY solution to make it work. So I never played the game. The game is 6 years old. This is what game industry seems to be aming for IMHO. Not to mention that StarForce itself acts like a rootkit and can cause serious problems to OS.

You can rest assured that the DA2 scheme won't be that bad, starforce is the worst of the worst. Remarkably I just learned starforce is still being sold on games on Impulse.

[Tabak]

Eurypterid wrote...

... a lot of it also has to do with what I call 'DRM feature creep'. Accept on-line activation and what do you get next time? On-line activations and limited activations. Then what? On-line activation, limited activations, and recurring on-line phone home schemes. Accept that and what comes next? On-line activation and permanent internet connection required (a la Ubisoft). Accept that and what's next?  Etc. etc. All of these schemes have been introduced, but luckily have not become the standard as of yet. I'm not willing to accept that this will be a standard requirement for a single player game with no on-line game-play component. 

I agree, DRM feature creep is happening, inexorably it seems. I wonder if the people who decide to implement these DRM measures ever take time to analyse the possible effects. DRM is built-in and non-negotiable with consoles - every console player gets what they are given and if things don't work they have recourse to the console & game manufacturer. With PC gamers its a whole different story. Most of the time, if things don't work, we have to look first at our own hardware & software configurations. We may have thousands of dollars invested in hardware and software. We may have one PC that is used for business and relaxation. And, for many different reasons, we may be unwilling to expose our PC's to risks from SecuROM or whatever DRM scheme is used. 

PC gamers are always going to be more aware of DRM - we have to be in order to protect our investment in our hardware. I had a $3000 PC that was basically screwed by SecuROM a few years ago & will never allow it near my machines again. Most long-time gamers have had experiences like that. 

Say all the PC gamers walked away from a game because of draconian DRM? The game developers then see that their games are more successful on console than they are on PC or MAC. So, the next game is developed for console only. Games studios will always develop for the greatest return on their investment but they don't always try to find out why PC gamers are staying away from some games.

To me, DRM feature creep is accompanied by console creep. Games studios that impose more onerous DRM on PC gamers than on any other platform are pushing PC gamers away. Ubisoft did it & Bioware looks like its not far behind. 

Modifié par Tabak, 18 février 2011 - 12:58 .