976 réponses à ce sujet

[Seifz]

jhnxsmth wrote...

Bioware, I agree that it's a good thing to ban language that incites illegal activity, but let us be honest, let us conduct this discussion in light of the most basic facts:

Allot of people are not installing this till someone patches it. If that patch comes on its own, FANTASTIC: they will definitely buy the game.
If that patch is bundled with an illegal copy of the game, FANTASTIC: they may or may not have already purchased the game, and they may or may not ever get around to it.

I bought DA1, and I have a loggin here. I'm so friggin lazy that I've never linked the two. That is your market.

Pretty much.  I'll actually be away on holiday for 5-6 days after release, so I'm not worried.  I'll let EA invade my privacy once to link my game to my EA account and by then I should have some options.  I'm hoping that the official executable turns out to be the least invasive, but it's not looking good right now.  

I expect that EA will provide a service to delink the game from my account so that I can resell it if I chose to do so.  There is absolutely no way in hell that part of the EULA would hold up in court.  Besides, they have such a service for other games (DA:O, ME2, etc.).  I think that the EULA is in error about not allowing resale.

Modifié par Seifz, 04 février 2011 - 06:25 .

[d friendly]

I'm not thrilled by this news. The DRM is by and large acceptable, but the periodic check-ins are making me reconsider my preorder. I know that life can change for the worse and that what I currently have available might vanish, and I'd rather not give up more control than I need to for the sake of "convenience". Diskless is nice and it is why in addition to buying the physical release, I also downloaded a copy from the EA store. But here I no longer can choose between reliable offline availability (DLC "free" and otherwise notwithstanding) and convenience. I would feel much better if the DRM was flexible enough that the disc being in the drive would count the same as a server check-in.

[mcneil_1]

Why do I get the weird deja vu feeling that bioware is going to do a repeat of the me1 phone in plan and just days before the game comes out say "there is no phone in every x days" <_<

[Seifz]

@mcneil_1: I certainly hope they do!

[nod24]

There's DRM,
but not like the other DRM games (AC2, CNC4, etc.) it's reasonable and there's balance between good and bad things.
And here whoever buys it gets to play, and not who downloads a pirate copy.
Anyway i'm gonna buy it, already bought Dragon Age Origins for my birthday and Dragon Age Origins: Awakening with my allowance.

Modifié par nod24, 04 février 2011 - 08:07 .

[Eurypterid]

nod24 wrote...

There's DRM,
but not like the other DRM games (AC2, CNC4, etc.) it's reasonable and there's balance between good and bad things.
And here whoever buys it gets to play, and not who downloads a pirate copy.

I'll just point out that this is not the case. Pirates strip out the DRM (that's kind of what the challenge is all about for them), so they're not hindered in any way by recurring checks or disc-in-drive or anything else.

But that's not really what DRM is all about, in my opinion. I believe it's more about killing second hand sales and preventing day zero piracy, as well as delaying the inevitable crack for as long as possible. Since the majority of a game's sales, as well as the make-or-break returns, occur within the first weeks of release, if the DRM serves to delay the pirates for just that long, it's done its job in the publisher's estimation.

I have a number of personal issues with DRM, having been bitten by it on three separate occasions on three different games. I therefore will not buy a game that crosses my threshold of tolerance. And that happens to be recurring online checks (and my tolerance of on-line activation is waning as well). So at present, recurring on-line checks is where I draw the line. Now, if a publisher promises to sunset the DRM down the road, I'm all ears. And I'll wait to see if it happens and purchase the game then. This has actually happened before. The most recent example I can think of is Alpha Protocol. Sadly, I've seen this promise fall by the wayside more often than being honored, so that's why I'll wait until any promised 'sunset' patch appears before I'll buy a game with a DRM I don't agree with.

So, yeah, I'm waiting to see what the word is on the recurring checks for DA2. The answer to this will directly determine whether I buy and play it or not.

Modifié par Eurypterid, 04 février 2011 - 08:25 .

[cosmin haraga]

Why should I be forced to play a game on anything but my preferred platform, just to satisfy some paranoid fool's desire to fight piracy? I prefer the PC, I want the game on the PC, but I won't put up with this type of idiotic DRM. If BioEA wants to make it annoying for me to use my preferred platform, then I just won't give them my money. As I said before when they tried to roll this exact same DRM out for the first Mass Effect - They need me (that is to say, the customer), I don't need them. I will continue to exist if BioEA folds, BioEA will not continue to exist if the customer stops buying their games. It's a simple equation.



beautifull post!



pirates don't realyl buy - they are either kids or to poor. any self respecting adult wants THE BOX. Replace drm costs with action figures and you'll get more sales.



unless the whole point is to stick sneaky programs on the pcs of people who can afford them and annoy honest citizens into cracking their purchase for CONSPIRACY reasons.



lol and not so quite.

[cosmin haraga]

tailoring the box and the price tag according to each country,s medium income will achieve the same results. we have cheap 18$ games three month before us : divinity 2 saga, risen, 2 worlds 2 !!! they activated and upgraded first run but that's survivable.

[kgersen]

Katorskay wrote...
EULAs never hold up in court.

The US Court of Appeals disagree with you :arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/the-end-of-used-major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses.ars

Katorskay wrote...
By your logical an EULA could say "If you agree to this we're allowed to access your account and charge your credit card any amount we wish" and it would be legal because HURR YOU ACCEPTED IT IN AN EULA!

Re-read what I said, EULA are not stronger than law and you can't put anything in EULA.

BUT it's totally wrong to say that EULA never hold up in court, and it's also totally wrong to assume that you can safely ignore everything written in the EULA just because you don't like it.

EULA are like any other contract, if there are abusive clauses then they wont hold up in court, but otherwise they will.

That's why it's EXTREMELY important to be very careful with what is written in any EULAs that you accept.

Modifié par kgersen, 04 février 2011 - 10:58 .

[cosmin haraga]

I think ea is willing to bet on the adiction side of the games, rather than bowing to the customers. Especially since most of these are either to young to care or to busy to read eula, box and drm posts and they need their fix.

[Reaverwind]

Eurypterid wrote...

nod24 wrote...

There's DRM,
but not like the other DRM games (AC2, CNC4, etc.) it's reasonable and there's balance between good and bad things.
And here whoever buys it gets to play, and not who downloads a pirate copy.

I'll just point out that this is not the case. Pirates strip out the DRM (that's kind of what the challenge is all about for them), so they're not hindered in any way by recurring checks or disc-in-drive or anything else.

But that's not really what DRM is all about, in my opinion. I believe it's more about killing second hand sales and preventing day zero piracy, as well as delaying the inevitable crack for as long as possible.

Oh, it's about far more than that. Through online check  system, EA and any other company gives themselves the ability to push advertising and what-not else to your system, and keep tabs on your computer activity, completely bypassing your firewall. Piracy is just a smokescreen to sell this garbage.

[Morroian]

Reaverwind wrote...

Oh, it's about far more than that. Through online check  system, EA and any other company gives themselves the ability to push advertising and what-not else to your system, and keep tabs on your computer activity, completely bypassing your firewall. Piracy is just a smokescreen to sell this garbage.

Only if you believe they're going to install a trojan on your system, and its paranoid to believe that.

[philbo1965uk]

Oh...when they have decided it will be about the time period..not wether it will be implemented..you can be assured it will ship with intrusive DRM.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Honestly it seems more of punishing the people who actually paid for it then stopping piracy. In fact if anything it's encouraging piracy by annoying the customers with stupid crap like this.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

And another thing, what if say I haven't played the game in a bit and then I get back to it and the servers down. Should I have to wait for it to start working again? Should I as someone who PAID for the game have to go through this just play the game I PAID for? And what if I don't have an internet connection anymore? What if I don't have it connected anymore but I still want to play the game that I PAID for?

[philbo1965uk]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Honestly it seems more of punishing the people who actually paid for it then stopping piracy. In fact if anything it's encouraging piracy by annoying the customers with stupid crap like this.

You are correct.

Nevertheless they have no incentive to curtail the practice...when as you see in this thread,there are people that buy regardless of the fact that their consumer rights have been trodden all over.

For a PC customer to resell there purchase...they have to conduct such transfer of ownership ' illegally' . Illegally in the sense of the ToS/Eula.Not illegal by law

For instance if you finish DA2 and want to sell it on...you have to sell it plus your EA account or Steam account.

When people (as they have said in this thread) that they are not too bothered, then that is an idiotic opinion.They are effectively saying I don't want my rights as a customer....meanwhile console 'trade in' is a multi-billion dollar industry all of its own.

[philbo1965uk]

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

And another thing, what if say I haven't played the game in a bit and then I get back to it and the servers down. Should I have to wait for it to start working again? Should I as someone who PAID for the game have to go through this just play the game I PAID for? And what if I don't have an internet connection anymore? What if I don't have it connected anymore but I still want to play the game that I PAID for?

You won't be able to...which is the gist of this topic.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

philbo1965uk wrote...

ZaroktheImmortal wrote...

Honestly it seems more of punishing the people who actually paid for it then stopping piracy. In fact if anything it's encouraging piracy by annoying the customers with stupid crap like this.

You are correct.

Nevertheless they have no incentive to curtail the practice...when as you see in this thread,there are people that buy regardless of the fact that their consumer rights have been trodden all over.

For a PC customer to resell there purchase...they have to conduct such transfer of ownership ' illegally' . Illegally in the sense of the ToS/Eula.Not illegal by law

For instance if you finish DA2 and want to sell it on...you have to sell it plus your EA account or Steam account.

When people (as they have said in this thread) that they are not too bothered, then that is an idiotic opinion.They are effectively saying I don't want my rights as a customer....meanwhile console 'trade in' is a multi-billion dollar industry all of its own.

Exactly. They're treating people who pay for the game like criminals in a futile attempt to stop piracy. Honestly all it's going to do is ****** off the people actually want to buy the game and perhaps even increase piracy. Because quite honestly if I'm buying the game I shouldn't have to go through crap like this.

[cosmin haraga]

serial was enough

make a 100 digit serial

it should stay with the buyer.



net based is intrusive and uses piracy as an excuse to spy buyers. there is no other reason that pops up.

[In Exile]

kgersen wrote...
BUT it's totally wrong to say that EULA never hold up in court, and it's also totally wrong to assume that you can safely ignore everything written in the EULA just because you don't like it.

EULA are like any other contract, if there are abusive clauses then they wont hold up in court, but otherwise they will.

That's why it's EXTREMELY important to be very careful with what is written in any EULAs that you accept.

Just a minor correction: they are a contract of adhesion, since they are not negotiated, and so not like every other contract. But standard form contracts of adhesion are common enough that they are not prima facie illegal, so the mere fact you haven't negotiated isn't enough to say you can ignore the provisions.

Again, this is not legal advice, I'm not a lawyer, etc. etc.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Morroian wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

Oh, it's about far more than that. Through online check  system, EA and any other company gives themselves the ability to push advertising and what-not else to your system, and keep tabs on your computer activity, completely bypassing your firewall. Piracy is just a smokescreen to sell this garbage.

Only if you believe they're going to install a trojan on your system, and its paranoid to believe that.

A major company would never do that...

Oh, wait...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal

www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2005/11/69601

news.cnet.com/FAQ-Sonys-rootkit-CDs/2100-1029_3-5946760.html

blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2005/10/31/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights-management-gone-too-far.aspx

[Killjoy Cutter]

In Exile wrote...

kgersen wrote...
BUT it's totally wrong to say that EULA never hold up in court, and it's also totally wrong to assume that you can safely ignore everything written in the EULA just because you don't like it.

EULA are like any other contract, if there are abusive clauses then they wont hold up in court, but otherwise they will.

That's why it's EXTREMELY important to be very careful with what is written in any EULAs that you accept.

Just a minor correction: they are a contract of adhesion, since they are not negotiated, and so not like every other contract. But standard form contracts of adhesion are common enough that they are not prima facie illegal, so the mere fact you haven't negotiated isn't enough to say you can ignore the provisions.

Again, this is not legal advice, I'm not a lawyer, etc. etc.

I've read that one of the major problems with shrink-wrap EULAs is that they're in no way authenticated.  There's no proof that a particular user opened the box, installed the software, read the lawyer-blather, or clicked on any of the "acceptance" buttons.

[BounceDK]

- You can play offline but the game will require a login check after a select period of days.
Great. Hopefully my ISP wont explode and cut my connection for weeks / months.

Modifié par BounceDK, 04 février 2011 - 02:30 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

The thing to remember is that DRM does nothing but treat paying customers like thieves, while doing nothing to stop thieves.



But we live in a world where the honest, decent, quiet majority are punished for the misdeeds of a few. I could give a host of examples where our lives are curtailed in reaction to the acts of a tiny minority of us who are idiots, lunatics, and jerks, but it would derail the thread in a myriad of directions.