18 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Chris Priestly]

UPDATED:
Below are the details of the final version of DRM that will be used with Dragon Age 2 for PC and Mac. 

We appreciate your patience and feedback on this.  DRM is always a topic of much debate, even internally.  It requires a delicate balance between providing some level of IP protection while minimizing the inconvenience or intrusion to a player’s experience.  These decisions are not made lightly - and a lot of time and effort was dedicated to ensuring that the system for DA2 is skewed to the player side of the experience.  It is as follows:

Dragon Age 2 Physical & Digital PC/Mac DRM are as follows:

• No disc check, you do not need the disc in drive to play.
• No limit on the total number of PCs you can install the game on.
• There is a limit to the number of unique/different PCs that can play the game within a time window (if online) [5 PCs in 24hrs].
• After each new install there is a 1-time online check needed the next time you play, requiring a log in to your EA account to verify game ownership.  If you are a member of these forums, you already have an EA account – just use the same email/password.
• You can play offline thereafter - the game will NOT require any subsequent login checks.  If online, a game ownership check happens each time you play.

Steam versions use Steam DRM, no other DRM is added, which means:

• No disc check, it is used for digital game versions purchased from Steam only.
• No limit to the total number of PCs you can install the game on.
• There is a limit to the number of unique/different PCs that can play the game at any one time (if online) [1 PC].
• Each install requires logging into your Steam account to verify game ownership.
•  You can play offline thereafter.  If online, a game ownership check happens each time you play.
• Steam pre-loads use Steam release control – you will not be able to play until the release day/time has passed for that region.

Dragon Age 2 Release Control (non-Steam versions)

• Does not use securom.
• It does not install anything to the PC.
• Sole purpose is to check with a server to validate whether the game release date has passed or not.
• It completely removes itself after the game release date has passed.
• You will not be able to play until that date has passed.
• Dates & times are set to the retail street date per country.

Common questions:

Does this apply to consoles? 

• No.  This is applies to PC/Mac only.

What about Mac/Cider, does it use Securom? 

• Dragon Age: Origins for Mac/Cider used Securom.  Dragon Age 2 for Mac/Cider will NOT use Securom and instead it will use the same non-Steam system listed above.

A PC review mentions Securom, what gives? 

• All EA preview & review game builds sent to press use Securom which is where the assumption came from.  The Dragon Age 2 actual retail & download version of the game that you will play will not use Securom, it uses one of the systems above.

If you have other questions please feel free to post here – as always, a reminder  that this thread is NOT for the general discussion of DRM, the pros and cons of other DRM systems or any talk about circumventing DRM (which is against the rules of conduct and will be disciplined as such). Thanks.





NEW - Did we sneak Securom in?  Short answer, still no.  Long answer...
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6194280/29#6490247

Bearbeitet von Chris Priestly, 12 März 2011 - 07:55 .

[Fernando Melo]

Ariella wrote...
Looking at the DRM info for non-steam, does this mean we'll be able to download night before release?

As Chris mentioned, that's a typo - 1st section is PC/Mac retail and digital. 2nd section is Steam.  3rd section is non-steam release control only (pc & digtal).

But to answer your question, most digital providers that support pre-loading will have DA2 available for download a day or two before street date.

Both retail and digital copies will only 'play' on the street date, however.

Eurypterid wrote...
    If online, a game ownership check happens each time you play.

Chris, what does the above mean? Does this mean if you're on-line you have to be logged into your account in-game in order to play (i.e. you can't log out of your account and play if you're connected to the internet)?

No.  To avoid confusion let's separate the terms online/offline to refer to a general active internet connection on your PC, whereas logging in/out is meant for either the "starting the game up" prompt (on first time startup), or the in-game login prompt on the main menu - so there are two separate login prompts (both use the same account though).

Once you've done your one-time check on the "starting the game up" prompt, then you're done from that side (won't ask you again).  Similar to Steam however, if you have an active internet connection then when the game starts up it'll do a check in the background.  The difference is that you can be offline/no internet after the first time and it'll simply default to let you play (essentially an auto-offline mode, no request needed from your part).

The in-game login on main menu is separate thing, and is used for the one-time DLC authorization, or if you want to have character profile updates to this site - but similarly, after the one-time DLC check, you can play logged out as well.

Let me know if that clarified (or confused more)?

SpockLives wrote...

Chris, what about DLC? If I install the Exiled Prince and other DLC, will I have to be logged in to play? Or will a one-time authentication do it?

DLC works in a similar principle - after the one time check you can be logged out and play. 

Aesieru wrote...

So when I install it AND the internet happens to be out, I will be incapable of playing it because it needs to go online?

Not too thrilled about that.

To be precise, you can install fine (and on as many PCs as you want).  It is when you start the game for the first time after install that you'll need to do the online check.


Other questions:
Will the demo experience be an indicator?  

Short answer is I hope not .  Long answer is that the two are not directly related in 'load' terms so using the demo as a comparison is not really going to help. 

I suppose the closest indicator to what you might expect on the main game will be whether you could login to the demo or whether that was very slow/timing out.  That is the closest to the account authorization process. 

The demo issues of the social site going down briefly and general slow download speeds of the demo from our own links are not as relevant as these are all on completely different (and less beefy) networks/servers to anything related to the main game (including the main game download itself) - so hopefully we won't see the same kind of issues. 

Having said that, there's a lot of moving parts and the entire system is only as fast as the slowest piece - but we're preparing as best as we can for launch day.


Hope that helps - let us know if you have other questions and we'll do our best to answer.
F.

[Fernando Melo]

Thanks for the feedback.  I spotted more questions, so onward...sorry for another long post. :innocent:

[quote]ghostmessiah202 wrote...
Chris - If there is a midnight sale of DA2 will the game allow us to authenticate it after midnight on the release date or will we be forced to install it but not be able to play it until 9am 3/8. (Preference is 12:00am 3/8)[/quote]

This is actually something I'm working on right now - I'll confirm for sure, but the intention is to set the local unlock time to midnight+1min on the local release day per country.  So in this case you should be able to get home and start to play.


[quote]mjharper wrote...
I'll rephrase my earlier question: If I've bought DAII from an American online store (gametreemac), but I live in Germany, will it activate on the American street date (8 March), or the German (11 March)?
[/quote]

I believe in this case you wouldn't be able to play until the German street date on the 11th.  I can try to find out from the gametree folks, but even if their site is not region locked and allowed the download as if you were in the US, I think the game's own release control would check for the local (German) date.


[quote]brownybrown wrote...
Dragon Age 2 Release Control (non-Steam versions)
Dates & times are set to the retail street date per country.
I live in Japan, Im ordering the game via hong kong mail order.
It will come around the 11th I assume but i cant seem to find any retail release date for Japan.,
EA's Japan site doesnt even offer DA2 for pre sale.
When will I be able to play?
thanks[/quote]

Part of what I'm working out right now is what happens in countries such as Japan and elsewhere that we do not have an official release date yet.  I'll resolve that next and will inform you guys here on the site before we launch - but barring any issues I would hope to allow for the unlock either on the US or EU date depending on the country.



[quote]Aesieru wrote...
Like I said... I will be unable to play because I don't have the internet...

Not everyone has the internet when they install games... I've gone through many a internet outages where I played games and at times INSTALLED games...
[/quote]

Ah, misunderstood - I thought in your original post you mentioned if it happened to go out (I presumed from that, that you had some connectivity even if not great). 

If you do, then this should still work fine - the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor of getting a single brief connection through to make the single check, as opposed to connectivity going down just as a check is happening. 


[quote]Glaucon wrote...
[quote]Jonp382 wrote...
What happens if one of these 'background' checks fails for whatever reason? Or if the internet goes out while we are playing?[/quote]

Worst case scenario is that you lose any in-game progress not saved and will have to reload:  As long as you have made the initial one time check (PC) you should be free to play off line.  You can prevent the repeat checks from occurring by disabling your network connections during before game play -- offline game mode if you like.  That's how understand it.
[/quote]


The game check happens prior to the game launching - so there will not be any issues with in-game progress.  Once you're in the game, you are in and the game drm will not interrupt you.   If it couldn't connect (e.g. internet out) on game startup, but you already had the first check previously, then it would allow you to play (it'll default back to the auto-offline mode).



[quote]slimgrin wrote...
Is there any penalty for playing offline, such as not having access to achievements, or being forced to use an offline account?
I am of course comparing this to SC2's DRM.[/quote]

Nope, the only 'loss' will be no uploads to this site (of achievements, profile pic and stats, etc) - but these will keep updating while playing offline and resume upload/sync next time you are playing while logged into the game (and have the appropriate settings enabled in the game options that opt in to do so). 



[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Does the game, when making that authentication check in the background, make me wait until it is complete before letting me use the main menu and play the game?

I ask because that's what ME2 did.  It would connect to the Cerberus Network automatically whenever I was online, but it wouldn't let me Load Game or Resume Game or anything while it was doing that.  And if my internet bandwidth was already being used by something, that could take quite a long time.

So, by "in the background" do you mean that the online check won't interfere with me playing the game?  Or do I have to wait for it to finish before I can play the game.[/quote]

The 'in the background' I'm referring to is the game check which happens as part of the game starting up (before even the first intro movies play) and should be super quick - you should not notice delays in getting to the game's intro screens etc. 

Once in the game, logging in could start a number of events - including the login request itself, uploading character updates to this site, downloading the daily news text for cerberus, etc - and while that's happening we're also trying to mount all the DLCs you may have, do any new dlc checks, etc.  Long story short, we can't safely let you start/resume/load into game content until all DLC content is mounted and it is predicated on the previous requests completing - which is the actual delay you're seeing (but not drm related).  DA2 has made progress in simplifying this though, so hopefully we won't see the same level of slow down.


[quote]Steve2911 wrote...
Just wondering if there's any chance that disk versions can be linked to my Steam account? Through code or profile or something? I know I can put it on Steam anyway, but I'd like to have my playtime, achievements and such logged no matter which version I bought (which plenty of games are doing these days). I'd just order the Steam version, but I pre-ordered the Signature Edition from retail and would rather not downgrade that.[/quote]

Unfortunately no, the game keys and accounts are completely separate - you won't be able to transfer achievements or playtime.   But if you have your SE bonus content tied to your EA account, should you get a Steam version of the main game in future and login with the same EA account used while playing the disc SE version, that SE content also will be there for you on the steam version - effectively turning it into an SE.


[quote]Altorius wrote...
[quote]Bann Duncan wrote...
You can import no matter what the acccount of the saves was. Still, how did you buy the game using an account? You have to register the game once you've received it - not now as far as I know.[/quote]

Well I have not yet but I was concerned that If when I download and install the digital copy that I preordered it would be already locked to the EA account that I purchased it on . including pre-order content being unaccessable Etc.

But If you are correct and I can upload my save from my other account it shouldn't be a issue .
[/quote]

Save games are not tied to an account at all (on PC/Mac), so you can not only import from a game you bought or played using a different EA account, you can also grab a friend's save game too for import purposes. 

One thing I'd say however, is I'd recommend keeping everything tied to the same EA account if that makes sense for how you use it (e.g it was largely unintentional to create the 2nd account, or you mainly game on 1 of the accounts anyway).  The reason for this is that other bonuses such as the reward items, and DLCs are also all tied to an account - and you can easily get into a situation where one account has some items, and another account has other items which is a hassle.   If you need help transfering items/games across accounts speak to EA support folks. 


Let me know if there's other info I can provide, and I'll do my best to do so.
F.

Bearbeitet von Fernando Melo, 25 Februar 2011 - 08:10 .

[Fernando Melo]

The release control software is also made by Sony DADC, the same team that makes securom.  But it is not the same product - for instance, it does not install anything etc just as we've stated before.  They have the same support site though which is the URL you're seeing.

[Fernando Melo]

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6194280/17#6346496

[Fernando Melo]

We've already talked about this here, but I'll re-iterate again...

We don't use Securom DRM.
We use a release control product which is made by the same team, but is a completely different product.


The constrast between the two couldn't be greater - it is night and day.

For those not aware, the hype/hysteria around 'Securom' is tied to Securom DRM, a separate product.  This is typically used by many games for disc based drm and can be used for digital as well.  This DRM installs several protected files and registry entries and as part of protecting itself and makes it very hard for a person to manually attempt to remove these - amongst other reasons (as i'm over-simplifying for brevity) that product is essentially what players are concerned about.

The release control software we use does none of this.  As we've said before it simply does a check of the date against an online server when you run the game.  If the street date has passed, it allows you to play and removes itself.   We use this and only this, and not the Securom DRM.

Someone also pm'd me that apparently it leaves behind a couple library files in the temp directory, which are named securom or their signature when examined mentions securom and that this was mentioned on an external site claiming proof that we've snuck securom in. 

I haven't been able to check these files personally yet, but as these are inert files sitting in the temp folder after removing itself, I still don't see the issue.  Most developers (including ourselves) re-use libraries we create all the time.  These are likely common utility files (e.g. contact a server) which do not make any sense to re-write from scratch when you have a perfectly usable generic library that already works.

The fact it leaves some inert files behind (while not great practice) is common with nearly every piece of software on windows.  Again, the files are inert and you can simply delete them manually - sometimes you just can't remove everything as files may be in use as part of the removal step of the program itself (something is running to do the removal).  

But to go from that to say that we've installed Securom DRM is like saying because DA2 uses common Microsoft libraries, we have clearly gone and snuck in Games for Windows Live now.  That's the kind of 'jump' in assumptions we're talking about.

As for the site claiming this (again, I admit I haven't had the opportunity to check yet - I did a while back but just got 403 errors on the page), if that is what they are claiming then sadly they are doing a great disservice to their audience.  Anyone that has ever actually used/installed SecuROM DRM and this, and is reasonably impartial in their assesment (ie. is not jumping to conclusion because they see the word 'securom' on the pop up) should be able to clearly tell the two things apart - and appreciate how far apart they actually are.


Incidentally, since the game is now unlocked world wide, everyone should have this auto-removed already anyway.

In any case, if you are still concerned about the files left behind in the temp folder, then either clear out your temp folder or let me know and I'll dig them up once back in the office and provide the file by file names so you can manually delete these.  (Worth noting that if we were actually using Securom DRM, this would not be possible to do).

F.

[Fernando Melo]

Anakha56 wrote...
Why is it in the majority of cases these files are not removed automatically?

As mentioned above, it could be they were still in use as part of the removal step.  I don't know for sure as we didn't make this.  But the fact they are benign, and residing in the temp folder which are open to deletion/clean up at any time by the user, points to this being the usual stragglers that many programs leave behind as opposed to a purposeful thing.

Anakha56 wrote...
Does the same apply for the Securom registry keys? Will the game function 100% 3 months down the line because I removed every trace of Securom?

If there are new keys with a name/reference to securom then i'm guessing they are also re-used/shared across their products.  But the fact that the Securom DRM product isn't installed, and the release control would have removed itself, then these too will be 'dead' reg entries.

I'll look into the reg entries though.  If after removing itself these are still there then that may be something we can clean up as part of uninstalling DA2. 

Similar to the files, if that is a genuine concern for folks (and are not comfortable removing these manually from registry) we can also look at a quick remove util as well.

F.

[Fernando Melo]

Kloreep wrote...
In
defense of Reclaim Your Game, the site that made the original post,
their statement of the facts regarding DA2 are correct and considered:
DA2 activation leaves some files in the temp folder; these files show up
as being SecuROM-related on a number of counts (file signatures, and
also according to DRM scanning utilities like Protection ID or Sony's
own SecuROM Diagnostic Tool).

RYG does get hyperbolic from there
I'm afraid, when they compare these facts to the statements in the DRM
FAQ on this forum. But RYG does provide good information on which people
can make their own judgments (like myself ).

You can still see their article in Google's cache here
if you want to check it out. The news sites that are running with this,
unfortunately, seem to be taking the "OMG it has teh securomz!!11!!"
tack. But that does not live up to the sophistication of RYG's original
article, even if the tenors are a bit similar.

Thanks for the links!  Hmm, I'm still not seeing on google but i'll keep trying - now i'm genuinely curious.

Looking at your post though, I can see if we're examining at that level (files left behind as it doesn't clean up after itself) where our info varies. 

As for those tools detecting securom - I don't know for sure until I try it myself, but I am guessing they are actually looking for how the file is signed, or have code patterns they match again and seeing these files are likely common to both products it would come up as positive.

Fundamentally (and I think your post alludes to this), for anyone who has installed an actual securom drm game before - that is a very different product from what we're talking about here.

Anakha56 wrote...

@ Fernando thank you for the response. When I get home much later I shall remove it all. In my case this is on a fresh Win7 x64 install with no other games installed, so this Securom folder and reg keys came from this game alone. I shall remove them and see what happens from there .

Definitely let us know.

F.

[Fernando Melo]

Merkar wrote...

SecuROM has a really bad rep. It is unfortunate that the company hired to make the date check still uses that name for things other than the DRM. For someone on the inside, this might be nothing. For players aware of the name "SecuROM", how could they not make the connection? Even usual detection tools indicate the left over from the date check as the real article.

The more I look at it, I think what they've done is make it so both products play nice together if you happen to have both.

So if you have a game that uses SecuromDRM, let's say it creates entries in registry: A, B and C
And same game or other uses release control, it either makes the same entry B above or uses it if the SecuromDRM already exists from another game.

Or you can layer the two products on top of one another.

Regardless, I agree - given the whole hoopla over this confusion, we should look for even mention of the name if we go this route in future.

Merkar wrote...
It would help if in the upcoming patch the left overs could be removed.

I'm away from a PC that I can load DA2 on to over this weekend - but now I'm curious.  If you uninstall DA2, do we still leave the files/reg entry there?  Or is it removed?

If they are still there, then this is something I can ask us to look into for patch - not next patch (1.01 is already available as beta test and we hope to release it very shortly - e.g. Mon), but will look into next one.

F.

[Fernando Melo]

Merkar wrote...

Fernando Melo wrote...

I'm away from a PC that I can load DA2 on to over this weekend - but now I'm curious.  If you uninstall DA2, do we still leave the files/reg entry there?  Or is it removed?

If they are still there, then this is something I can ask us to look into for patch - not next patch (1.01 is already available as beta test and we hope to release it very shortly - e.g. Mon), but will look into next one.

F.

RYG people have indicated that the reg entries remain even after the game is removed.

Considering that the date check is well integrated with their other product, removing the reg entries could create problems with other software using the DRM. Being that the case, a separate fix might be less problematic.

Thanks for your input Fernando, as always.

Ok, will get our guys looking at that.  I think you're right though, if we did that we could end up breaking other products that are using the drm version.  We'll likely need to get Sony to fix that on their end.

In the meantime, we could still look at providing manual instructions for removing this.

F.

[Fernando Melo]

Mage One wrote...

Thank you for your prompt and in-depth
addressing if this issue, Fernando. Given all you've said, though, as I
understand it the same Sony team that made SecuROM made a product using
SecuROM code that does the sort of work SecuROM does complete with
SecuROM signatures and called it something else. This seems
disingenuous on their part. I can see why they would want to separate a
new product they claim perpetuates none of SecuROM's worst behaviors
from SecuROM's reputation. Given the job they did, however, it seems
more like they made a nicer version of SecuROM and renamed it to avoid
the legal and public opinion issues that come with SecuROM name. Then
they did a bad job of hiding the fact. I understand people are more
likely to believe "This new DRM isn't sinister at all" than "This new
version of SecuROM isn't sinister at all," but calling it something else
because of that seems dishonest.

No, *that* would still be Securom.  What they've done is create a completely separate product - which granted, does share common files - but does not do anything that securom drm does.  Hence, it is not securom.

I will grant that using those common files and having traces of the securom name is not great - but that does not change what it is, and what it is not.

uDoh wrote...

Maybe Bioware/EA should have been a bit smarter when licencing Sony DADC SecuROM, making sure for example, that when the date check fails, there link on that page doesn't point to the SecurROM page.

It all seems like a VERY badly handled ****up and once again, complete lack of honesty from Bioware/EA. Why did you not just say, from the outset, we are using Sony DADC securom instead of stating "Does not use securom.".

The date release checker is STILL securom. It might not be the "nasty evil, drm rootkit" version, but it is still securom.

Why the deception?

Again, it is not securom drm, or even a 'not the nasty evil drm rootki' version of securom drm. There is nothing similar to what release control is to what securom drm is.

How is that a lack of honesty on our part - we clearly said we do not use securom.  Which we do not.  And anyone that has used it in the past will see the differences between the two products.

Again, I will grant that having the same support url is not great - but are you that paranoid that securom drm will somehow install itself on your machine remotely by visiting their support site or something??   Its a support site url.

[Fernando Melo]

Garak2 wrote...

Again, I will grant that having the same support url is not great - but are you that paranoid that securom drm will somehow install itself on your machine remotely by visiting their support site or something?? /images/forum/emoticons/andy.png Its a support site url.

No, people who saw that message were concerned that securom was already installed despite being told by you guys that DA2 did not have securom.

Now, it's been cleared up but your right hand didn't appear to know what your left hand was doing since that link was not even known to you guys until the community informed you.

I still say though, that a release control is DRM and the people who made it are throwing securom links at us. You draw the conclusion.

Believe me, I get that.  I can't change that.

What I can do, is get information out to you.  And try to make sure people get that this isn't the same thing as the DRM that they are actually concerned about.  And try to be as open about this based on what we know.

I've mentioned it before on this thread - I have no interest in lying about anything to anyone.  And think I've been pretty straightforward and upfront about what I'm saying.

If people still doubt, or see conspiracy, or deceit or something that isn't there - then they are entitled to their opinion of course, but we remain at an impass. 

[Fernando Melo]

Azure Sky wrote...

There are many different versions of
Securom. This appears merely to be a new kind, from the same company.
You didn't disclose this when you should have. It doesn't matter that
you claim it's a harmless version.

Indeed there are different versions of securom drm.  This is not one of them.  Nor am I claiming it is a harmless version of it.  It is not it. 

It happens to be made by the same company.  They use a couple of common library files.

Like i said before - to say that is including Securom, would be like saying that because we use Microsoft libraries that we have included Games for Windows Live.  That's how far of a jump apart these are.

uDoh wrote...

Fernando Melo wrote...
Again, it is not securom drm, or even a 'not the nasty evil drm rootki' version of securom drm. There is nothing similar to what release control is to what securom drm is.

How is that a lack of honesty on our part - we clearly said we do not use securom.  Which we do not.  And anyone that has used it in the past will see the differences between the two products.

It might not be Securom DRM, but it is STILL Securom, so why did Bioware state that DA2 "Does not use securom.", surely they should have clearly stated something like  "Uses Sony DADC Securom Datechecker".

There might be differences, but they are both securom products, thus they are both securom.

Because it is not securom.  They are both products made by Sony DADC.  And like I mentioned above they do use some common files - that does not make this Securom any more than using a microsoft server connection library make our game into Games for Windows Live.

Ok - we could have said it uses Sony DADC Release Control (which is the name of the product).  Would that have helped? 

Also to be clear - i'm not a lawyer.  Nor do I have any intention of being one (no offense to lawyers).  When we posted the initial information it was done to try to clarify things not hide anything. 

I can appreciate that perhaps the wording was not what you would have prefered, but again not intentionally done that way, and I was also not expecting us to be nit-picking over language on this either.

uDoh wrote...

Fernando Melo wrote...
Again, I will grant that having the same support url is not great - but
are you that paranoid that securom drm will somehow install itself on
your machine remotely by visiting their support site or something?? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie]  Its a support site url.

YES.

ps. Thanks for your time in responding.

Ok.  Fair enough then. 

You're welcome.  To be clear - i'm happy to continue to respond and answer as best as I can. 

[Fernando Melo]

Godeshus wrote...

Arguing semantics on the internet is pointless.

Here's the bottom line. Your marketing department used language that was intended to confuse and deceive. Here is the result, already (wasn't me, I'm just saying)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM

I suggest transparency. Inform your customers PRIOR to release what is going on. Provide customers with the details of what they are getting themselves into, and do your part to insure that your customers DO know the difference. If you do your part and activision do their part and id and 2k and all these devs do their part to show to their customers that our opinions and concerns matter then the entire industry will benefit, and then ultimately consumers will benefit. Build trust, instead of deceiving us with linguistic gymnastics. Now you're scrambling to try and find excuses and explanations that barely meet the standards of empathic customer service.

THAT is a cost that is factored into the price of the game and something that us consumers have to pay for, when we've been complaining about the method and technologies used for years.

-g

I completely agree that arguing semantics is pointless - I also agree with the majority of your post.  But I thought we were being transparent prior to release.  I'm also not sure how I'm deceiving anyone with linguistic gymnastics?

philbo1965uk wrote...

@Fernando Melo

It appears
from your posts that you were genuinely unaware of SecuRom installing
itself onto the clients machine (other than a date check) .
Nevertheless , you were aware SecuRom was being used.Hence to inform via a sticky that SecuRom wasn't used was a LIE !.

It
now transpires that Bioware are unaware exactly what may/may not be
permanantly installed on the clients machine.This is also unacceptable.

Therefore
to continue to reassure people that all Bioware used SecuRom for was a
date check,not being privy to the exact nature of the SecuRom coding is
deliberately misleading the consumer.

One would suggest that Bioware sort this mess out instead of looking silly on its own forum.

You
are trying to convince people that although you are selling pistachio
ice cream...you do not think it of merit to add a 'Nut allergy' warning
on the premise it isn't a peanut !

Again, I think i've been pretty straightforward in my posts so far on this.  I'm not sure why you think we're doing the above? 

Garak2 wrote...

I think we all know that it's all cleared up now (those of us who read this thread) but I guess we are just trying to explain how things got misunderstood in the first place. Thanks for taking the time to talk to us.

I do appreciate that.  The intent was to provide this upfront, but we definitely have some things to learn for next time.  Thanks.

F.

Bearbeitet von Fernando Melo, 12 März 2011 - 09:59 .

[Fernando Melo]

uDoh wrote...

Fernando Melo wrote...
Ok - we could have said it uses Sony DADC Release Control (which is the name of the product).  Would that have helped? 

Actually
yes. I would been able to do my own research before commiting to
purchasing, and personally, I would not have purchased, due to the the
datechecker being Sony DADC Release Control (securom connection), but I
would have been able to decide that for myself.

Like I choose not to buy Assassin's Creed 2 because of Ubisoft's DRM.

There is no mention on the website, none in the EULA.

Ok, that's a fair point.  We did say we had release control ahead of time, but we can make sure to mention the provider in future.

[Fernando Melo]

philbo1965uk wrote...



I conclude .....that DA2 uses a SecuRom DRM product when Bioware explicitly stated it did not !

You may argue semantics but it doesn't change the fact.

Good try, but no.  You assumption is not correct.

[Fernando Melo]

Godeshus wrote...

Basically
everything you've been saying since the information was published only
BEFORE the game is released. Take care of the problem before it even IS a
problem.

-g

 
Ok, we did provide what we thought was wanted and at the time the questions weren't there as they are now, but fair point on communicating more earlier. 

philbo1965uk wrote...

There is no assumption ..Bioware are using SecuRom DRM.

Your argument and interpretation of it's use... is irelevant to the fact.

Let me make sure I have this - your argument and interpretation is that there are some reg entries and benign files left behind from not thoroughly cleaning up after itself.  And therefore your conclusion is a completely different product must have been installed... even if there is no trace of that supposed product?  But that is not relevant or factual to the argument?

[Fernando Melo]

Kurzan wrote...

Is there any way around the SecuROM date check!? Why can't it just check the date on my system, why do you have to use a SecuROM site that doesn't work to get support for this?

We've had reports where some players are unable to get to the sony servers - usually firewall related, and in one case network path.  But try the beta patch 1.01 we're currently testing, and see if that helps.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/300/index/6482838

arghhhjustletmein wrote...
<snip>
Now, I don't want to bash Bioware anymore than they are already getting, I can only say that I fully understand the fuss (even if it all turns out to be a missunderstanding). Let me put it this way, If I had installed DA2 on the understanding that it does NOT contain SecuROM, and then scanned my machine finding files with SecuROM like signatures and registry key entries in the SecuROM area, well I wouldn't be happy either. I find it disappointing that after the various experiences and bad PR that both EA and Bioware have gone through in the past related to DRM, that they don't seem to be able to handle this issue better.

I hope this serves as a lesson to take the issue more seriously next time, the fact we are being told that it looks like Bioware basically farmed out this work on a 'release control program' to the same people who make SecuROM, and then apparantly didn't do much research into what this code does on consumers machines, well it doesn't fill me with confidence. The fact it writes registry keys to a secuROM area alone should have been a red flag if anybody had even bothered to look at how this thing worked before unleashing it on customers.

The sad part is I think Bioware have actually tried to do the right thing here, I applaud the fact that they have moved away from SecuROM DRM and limited activations, but this has been handled very badly and call me a nutjob if you must, but I will wait for further information from those clever community people to hopefully confirm the true nature of what this 'Release Control Program' does, I mean, how can I trust Bioware when they seem ignorant of the way it works themselves ?

I'm sorry if the impression is that no review of this was done.  Quite the contrary.  There was a very deliberate choice made to not go with SecuROM for DRM but to still use the sony release control software.

As I've mentioned, yes it is unfortunate that it uses some of the same reg entries and I complete see the point of view of being alarmed by finding this.  And we definitely need to do a better job of it.  You have no argument from me on that.

That doesn't change the fact of what it is, and what it is not.

DJBare wrote...

Merkar wrote...

A temporary DRM in order to safeguard distribution arrangements.

Just my opinion, but looking at the latest figures for piracy, this seems like a complete waste of money and time, you might be interested to know a cracked version of the exe was released on the 8th, yup the same day the game was released in the US.

PS, please don't ban me for using the P word, I'm just showing the DRM to be worthless.

Different discussion. 

[Stanley Woo]

Hey, folks. Let's keep this discussion on topic and, if you haven't yet, click the BioWare button under the thread title in this forum's front page to see all of Fernando Melo's responses. He's been very open and forthcoming with information and clarification regarding the Sony DADC Release Control used in Dragon Age II. Discussion of software piracy is off-topic for this discussion. Thank you.