663 réponses à ce sujet

[Soul Cool]

chunkyman wrote...

Dumb question alert. What is a DRM and why is it a problem?

Digital Rights' Management, and it becomes a problem for many people because it acts as a barrier to instant-access and can cause problems with general access to the game itself. (Like not having access to the Internet to validate an install.)

[Erode_The_Soul]

Soul Cool wrote...

chunkyman wrote...

Dumb question alert. What is a DRM and why is it a problem?

Digital Rights' Management, and it becomes a problem for many people because it acts as a barrier to instant-access and can cause problems with general access to the game itself. (Like not having access to the Internet to validate an install.)

Not to mention, in some extreme cases, the DRM acts as a rootkit/virus and can attack your computer, even after all traces of the game it came attached to are gone.

[ilPianiste]

While it still is unclear if there will be repeating authentication-requirements, it has become clear to me, that the need to register the game with an EA-account is primarily aimed at the used-games market.

I'm somewhat undecided if "draconian" measures against piracy are really needed or not. Even if it remains impossible to ultimately prevent piracy, for the consciousness of the publisher AND the shareholders it may be worthwhile to at least "try something" against it. Of course it may well be that the consequences of inconveniencing honest (potential) customers negate any actual commercial benefit of those measures ...

Regarding the other intention of registering the game with an EA-account, which is largely ignored by such discussions: There I am decidedly against it. I don't accept this concept that I shall NOT own the one copy of the game I payed for. If a game is crap (in my opinion), to sell it to someone else is a "legitimate" means to minimize my financial loss. Even if it's just "not great" and thus doesn't inspire the wish to be kept for later replaying, I may want to sell it - like I can with a book or a CD.
Consequence: I'll at least delay purchasing DA2, waiting for lower prices. But who knows, when the hype has declined and other, newer games occupy my attention, DA2 may be forgotten for quite some time ...

 

[ZyGophe]

The full EULA can be viewed @ http://eacom.s3.amaz... Cider_.1.4.pdf

An internet connection is only required for the initial launch on any unique PC; subsequently offline gameplay may result in gathering of info for later transmission to EA.

[RosaAquafire]

generalkorrd wrote...

Connect wrote...

I bought 2 copies of Mass Effect 2 for the PC just because it only needed the disc check.

That is just.... wierd. I have a feeling this is where you lose a lot of creditability with people. This, combined with the insistent whining you keep doing makes people not want to support you so much.

Hm? Why is that weird? Capitalism is about voting with your wallet, and it only works when people are willing to do that. Buying two copies is casting two votes instead of just one.  Buying a second copy is just telling a company you doubly appreciate the service. It isn't any weirder than leaving a big tip at a restaurant for the same reason. Voting with your wallet.

For someone who cares a lot about DRM, what's the problem? To be honest, there's really no point in paying for media at ALL these days unless you're voting with your wallet on some level -- or unless you have a  moral objection to piracy, which is totally cool in my book. (Though some people would call that weird, too.) Myself? I rarely buy music, but when I find an album that I really love and that speaks to me, I'll buy multiple copies just to boost its sales. Or a book I loved and isn't making any progress in its market, I'll order a few copies off amazon just to tip the author and let the publisher know that SOMEONE liked it.

I don't think it's weird at all. As if you don't spend money on dumber things.

Modifié par RosaAquafire, 26 janvier 2011 - 12:17 .

[RosaAquafire]

Soul Cool wrote...

Digital Rights' Management, and it becomes a problem for many people because it acts as a barrier to instant-access and can cause problems with general access to the game itself. (Like not having access to the Internet to validate an install.)

I think the BIGGEST problem with DRM, for most people who are really offended by it, is that it makes paying customers jump through stupid hoops and feel like they're being punished for being in the minority willing to actually support the damn company. It takes considerably less effort to pirate a game than to buy it legally.

Speaking in a generality and not attempting to voice for anyone else: when a game has forgiving DRM, customers feel trusted and respected. When it has tough DRM, customers feel chastised and inconvenienced.

DRM just plain doesn't work, it never has and it never will. This DRM will take about ten minutes longer to crack than a simple CD check. Maybe an hour. But it'll be cracked before March 9th and it'll take five minutes on google to figure out how to do it. The people who buy the game get to deal with online activation and a laundry list of limitations on their purchase. The people who pirate the game get it easy, quick, and free. And illegal, but hey, it's 2011, at this point you either care or you don't.

The bottom line is that people who are going to pirate are going to pirate, and people who are going to buy are going to buy. You could put zero DRM or lock the thing down like the alcatraz, and it's not going to change that. THe whole attitude is outdated and just creates a hostile relationship between consumer and distributor.

I firmly believe in ten years, the dynamic will have changed. Customers will be offering their loyalty and companies will be marketting to court that. I just wish we could get through this dumb transition period.

It's a matter of principle. No one likes to go through red tape when, in their mind and in that of public consiousness, what they're doing is a good thing.

[DaBigDragon]

Saibh wrote...

DaBigDragon wrote...

DRM wouldn't be needed if people didn't torrent the crap out of hot new games. Simple fact.

Quite true. On the same note, is DRM needed, because it doesn't stop people from torrenting the crap out of new games?

Unfortunately, yes, DRM is needed in my opinion. I see DRM as a necessary evil. Bioware and game companies in general have to at least put forth an effort to try and protect their creation from people who actively steal it via torrenting and file-sharing.

Yes, I agree with you that DRM does not and probably will not ever 100% of the time stop people from cracking it and torrenting new games, but I think it at least keeps the honest people honest, especially those who don't have a clue how to pirate a game and maybe try it for the first time, fail at it, then say "O well, I guess I'll just go out and buy it."

The problem most legitimate customers have with DRM is that it ends up causing more harm then good once the game is out, which has been the case with many released games with DRM in the past. That's the fault of the publisher/game company, I think. If you're going to implement DRM in your product, please make sure it works so customers don't end up in the same argument that this very thread is tackling.

Game companies and publishers cannot simply release a game with zero copy protection anymore (or just a standard disc check, which may as well be having no copy protection). Gone are those days, which is very sad but true.

DRM is useful to the point it stops a legitimate customer from playing the game.

Modifié par DaBigDragon, 26 janvier 2011 - 02:10 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

You can always step back from your pre-order and keep boycotting DRM.



I fully support the new copy protection. The harder it gets for others to actually pirate a game, the happier I am. I always buy my games and I am disgusted by the worthless software pirates. There is only one important thing: the copy protection must not interfere with my gaming experience. Ubisoft's UbiLauncher violates the rule, a permanent internet connection heavily influences one's gaming experience and can easily ruin the game.



Dragon Age: Rise to Power's copy protection does not require a permanent internet connection, so...awesome, go for it EA. Make it as hard as possible to pirate the game.



It should be even harder, maybe by requiring a certain, unique small file that you need to download before being able to play the game etc.



Anyone who still asks for a disc-only check is blind to nowadays' software market and piracy ruining it.



It's 2011. Most people have an internet connection or know someone who has one they could ask. If someone lives in the jungle...too bad. When a game requires an internet connection to be activated, you can read a small hint on the package. On the same package that also tells you what PC configuration you need at least to play the game.



If your PC is too old to run a game, you can't play it. If you don't have an internet connection, you can't play the game. Welcome to 2011. Deal with it.

[BTCentral]

Nice to see this has actually turned into a serious discussion.

Personally, I think that DRM is a necessary evil.

Yes, it always gets defeated/bypassed, yes it's always a game of cat and mouse... however companies like EA need to at least be seen as trying to protect their IP, both to attempt to try and stop loss of sales, and IMHO as a token effort to show the investors etc.

In theory I do not have a problem with that, but when it starts restricting the use of the product for the legitimate customers, and not the people that pirate the game, that's when I have a problem with it.

Personally I really disliked DA:O's disk check method and prefer an online check, however for the people with limited/no internet connectivity that's a serious problem - one that could result in them to have to use potentially dangerous files to play their legitimately purchased game - and that's just not right.

Modifié par BTCentral, 26 janvier 2011 - 03:08 .

[Voidlight]

My biggest gripe with Digital Restrictions Management is the lack of trust. Trust is, and must always be, a two-way street. If a software publisher cannot trust its own paying customers, why should they trust the publisher? I'm not saying we should be given free reign to do what we like with their software, but it would be nice if paying customers were no longer inconvenienced because they might be criminals.

That philosophy has never made a lick of sense to me. Pirates don't buy a game in the first place unless they want to distribute it on the internet, and even then it's probably stolen from the suppliers because these games are seemingly always leaked before they're due to be released. So why make lives harder for the people who do buy the game when the criminals are the people who don't (and typically don't have to deal with the same bull)?

Successful DRM should improve the experience for customers, not make it worse. This is something Stardock and Valve have figured out.

Modifié par Voidlight, 26 janvier 2011 - 03:12 .

[In Exile]

RosaAquafire wrote...
Hm? Why is that weird? Capitalism is about voting with your wallet, and it only works when people are willing to do that. Buying two copies is casting two votes instead of just one.  Buying a second copy is just telling a company you doubly appreciate the service. It isn't any weirder than leaving a big tip at a restaurant for the same reason. Voting with your wallet.

No, it isn't. A company does not have magic powers - it can't know why you bought their game specifically.

What if I bought four copies of Mass Effect 1 because I wanted to supoort Bioware (and this is not true at all, but just for the sake of argument) it allowed me punch reporters? How would Bioware know it was the fact that I so strongly support reporters being punched that made me buy the game instead of the multititude of other features in ME1?

A producer has to guess at why consumers did not buy a product. Then, the producer tweaks the product and puts a new version on the market (if there is enough capital to do so). If the product sells better, the producer can assume that some change was responsible... but even that is tricky (maybe the video game market grew in the meantime).

I don't think it's weird at all. As if you don't spend money on dumber things.

The real problem is that you can't actualy support features this way. Bioware might think that a feature you actually hate is why you bought the game.

[FellowerOfOdin]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...


Well if all the games require an internet connection, maybe some them corporations can pay for half our monthly Internets fee. I think that would make it fair for me.

Unless, ya know, you have money pouring out of your bodily holes and don't care as much for that aspect.

I fully agree. I remember EA paying 50% for my new graphics card so I can run Dead Space 2. Wait...they didn't. <_<

[Connect]

In Exile wrote...

RosaAquafire wrote...

Hm? Why is that weird? Capitalism is about voting with your wallet, and it only works when people are willing to do that. Buying two copies is casting two votes instead of just one. Buying a second copy is just telling a company you doubly appreciate the service. It isn't any weirder than leaving a big tip at a restaurant for the same reason. Voting with your wallet.

No, it isn't. A company does not have magic powers - it can't know why you bought their game specifically.



What if I bought four copies of Mass Effect 1 because I wanted to supoort Bioware (and this is not true at all, but just for the sake of argument) it allowed me punch reporters? How would Bioware know it was the fact that I so strongly support reporters being punched that made me buy the game instead of the multititude of other features in ME1?



A producer has to guess at why consumers did not buy a product. Then, the producer tweaks the product and puts a new version on the market (if there is enough capital to do so). If the product sells better, the producer can assume that some change was responsible... but even that is tricky (maybe the video game market grew in the meantime).

I don't think it's weird at all. As if you don't spend money on dumber things.

The real problem is that you can't actualy support features this way. Bioware might think that a feature you actually hate is why you bought the game.

Actually, that's why we are here in the first place. To let them know what we like and what we don't. That's the whole point of why I have motivated my purchase of 2 copies. So they KNOW it was because of the drm. That's also the reason for me canceling my pre-orders of the signature edition, as well as 3 other friends of mine who have done the same. One by one, these lost sales add up and they now know why and try to do something to revert back to friendly drm in the next titles.

[Kandid001]

I don't mind keeping my disk in the driver and/or a one time online activation. Just don't overdo it.



Whether you or we like it or not, people will keep pirating your games, it's not a matter of ethics or morals, it's just a matter of time. Just focus on us, your customers, instead of those pirates.

[Anzer]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...

Well if all the games require an internet connection, maybe some them corporations can pay for half our monthly Internets fee. I think that would make it fair for me.

Unless, ya know, you have money pouring out of your bodily holes and don't care as much for that aspect.

Last I checked, internet was not pay-per-use (unless you're at a hotel), but instead a monthly fee. Meaning you aren't charged for every time you connect to the internet, but instead pay to have 24-hour access for 30 days. So being required to verify the game when you install it for the first time leads to a company using half of your internet? 
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your chain of logic that drew you to come to this conclusion?

[Anzer]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...

Oh, I'm just a dumb yahoo who thinks tighter and tighter leashes eventually suffocate and that stunts like the AC2 DRM should be outlawed, but what do I know, I don't make 'em, I just buy 'em, yeeehaaaw!

*In cose some o' yous ain't getting it, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY NEED an internet connection to play da game, but you doo need the rest of y'all components.

Sorry Joe, it was an honest question. I sincerely was curious what your logic was behind that previous statement.
But hey, if you're going to go all nonsensical mockery on me, that's fine.

[Aprudena Gist]

why the hell isn't there clear concise information about the drm anywhere yet? oh yea because it completely ****s over people so they are trying to get them to buy the game with a false sense of advertising.

[PanosSmirnakos]

I can fully understand that companies want to protect their products. As long as their DRM system doesn't break my gaming entertainment and my nerves though. A bad example is the pc version of Assassin's Creed 2. They do damage to themselves (aka sales) and their loyal customers with a DRM like this. It's up to them to find a balanced DRM system but I am not willing to spend my money for a product which you have to give 10 codes to activate it, do this and do that to play it, like I try to hack the FBI or something. So, I hope for a DRM (at least) similar to Dragon Age Origins.

[Mage One]

Right, well, that would suck. I refuse to play with DRM, as I have said before, because having to deal with anything more than a disk check has, at virtually every implementation, broken something and made me spend more time than I cared to futzing with it to get it to work. (Or, in the worst cases, restore things to pre-DRM functionality.) If this does require repeated online activation, I'll probably cancel my pre-order and not buy it until it gets patched, if it ever gets patched. I'm really looking forward to the game, but I will not play with protection schemes that are likely to give me headaches, waste my time and/or prohibit me from using a product I legally purchased in legal ways as I see fit.



Also, just as importantly, I will not buy a product that permanently ties itself to me and is rendered useless afterward. I bought it; I have the right to resell it. EA may not like that I have that right, but I do, and I refuse to allow them to render it useless by making the product unusable after I've installed it. I've never sold a single Bioware game I've ever owned. I enjoyed them too much, and I have had little to no problem installing old games on my system. Regardless, I have the right to sell it if I want to, and I will not accept an erosion of that right.