945 réponses à ce sujet

[Eurypterid]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Is there a way to completely disable the online check after the one-time check at install ?

Also, despite what is written in this thread, I've read from press reviewers that the game will require, like Starcraft II, a regular re-connection to the Net to "refresh" the activation. Is this true, or is it really possible to, say, install the game on a computer, validate it, and then remove the Internet connection for the next five years without problem ?

According to info given by BioWare, the game requires only one* activation check when it's first installed. Once the game is activated, you can disconnect from the internet and play for as long as you like. No other check is reqiured. However, if you are connected to the internet the game will reauthorize/handshake with the EA servers every time you start the game.

So it seems that when you fire the game up it will check to see if you have an active internet connection. If you do, it will reauthenticate. If you don't, it will defualt to off-line mode and you can play anyway.

I personally don't see the purpose of the start-up check, but there you go.

*Release date check is separate, but only performed once.

[Mihai Hornet]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Mihai Hornet wrote...

Online activation is too much for my taste. They should have stayed with disk check only, like in DAO and ME2. In fact I trusted EA to do so enough to preorder DA2 on Amazon. Man, was I wrong. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie] Needless to say I have already canceled my order. I will buy DA2 ONLY when EA will remove the DRM in a future patch, if they will ever do it.

I support developers that trust and respect their customers and don't tax legit gamers with annoying DRM. I don't give an example of such  developer because I'm sure EA already knows which [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie] game will be released soon, absolutely DRM free.

Why is it too much?

You're on the internet right now

I'm not sure if you try to be funny or if you really don't understand. Please allow me to explain.

Online activation will not stop DA2 for being cracked as no kind of DRM ever accomplished for a game. Then why are they doing it?

1. Online activation - get used with the idea that you need Internet connection to play single player, you have to be authorized to play the game, paves way for point 2.
    ("doesn't bother me", "you are on the internet right now") - for you it obviously worked.
1a. Always online to play/periodic checks - enforce point 1.
2. Limited installs - don't think you can install and play the game as many times you want. Not without our permission anyway.
   ("5 installs are enough") - what is you limit? 5? 15? 150?
3. Online account- you must sign online with us to play our games.
4.DLC - you download content and must activate it online. Long gone are the days when bonus content was available for free. You never get the full game and you need an account and to be online to play DLC. Have you noticed that DLC is already available for DA2? You will pay $60 for DA2 and $7 for DLC right away. This proves my point.
5, Online gaming services (GFWL - Microsoft want's a slice of the pie too, steam) - we can control your games, when you install them and when you play them.

Where is all of this going? Publishers will control, (may I say dictate?) when you install and play games. In the future you will find yourself paying a monthly fee to play single player games. Or, even worse, you will pay for the time you play. Maybe you will buy a bare bones game and then pay for more episodes as DLC?
If you surrender the control to publishers, all the above is possible and more. Have you noticed how many times I said "control"?

To summarize, I pay for a game and I hate to be at the mercy of any kind of service to install and play it. Is this clear enough for you?

Sorry EA, I will not fall for your little schemes.

Modifié par Mihai Hornet, 05 mars 2011 - 07:05 .

[Argoyne]

If you want to allow only the initial check and have a software firewall you could permit the required check and then block it net access there after that would likely result in the wait on starting the game though, that is a period where the menu is unresponsive.

Alternatively you could find out the addresses that the game connects to and add them to the host file as localhost that might take less time to get into the game.

Whatever you do might want to put a note somewhere lest you want to install dlc or whatever.

[AlanC9]

Mihai Hornet wrote...
Online activation will not stop DA2 for being cracked as no kind of DRM ever accomplished for a game. Then why are they doing it?

Locked doors don't necessarily stop burglars, fences don't keep anyone really determined from getting over them. And yet we still have both locks and fences.

1. Online activation - get used with the idea that you need Internet connection to play single player, you have to be authorized to play the game, paves way for point 2.
    ("doesn't bother me", "you are on the internet right now") - for you it obviously worked.
1a. Always online to play/periodic checks - enforce point 1.
2. Limited installs - don't think you can install and play the game as many times you want. Not without our permission anyway.
   ("5 installs are enough") - what is you limit? 5? 15? 150?
3. Online account- you must sign online with us to play our games.
4.DLC - you download content and must activate it online. Long gone are the days when bonus content was available for free. You never get the full game and you need an account and to be online to play DLC. Have you noticed that DLC is already available for DA2? You pay $60 for DA2 and already $7 for DLC. This proves my point.
5, Online gaming services (GFWL -Microsoft want's a slice of the pie too, steam) - we can control your games, when you install them and when you play them.

Itals mine. When was that, exactly? 

The problem with a "slippery slope" argument like this is that you end up arguing against something that isn't unacceptable in the name of fighting some hypothetical issue in the future that might be unacceptable. Am I supposed to pretend to be bothered by the current DRM because I'll actually be bothered by a future DRM?

[AlexMBrennan]

Argoyne wrote...

If you want to allow only the initial check and have a software firewall you could permit the required check and then block it net access there after that would likely result in the wait on starting the game though, that is a period where the menu is unresponsive.

That may not be possible at all - see the entry on wwwsh at this (German) website) for a proof of concept. Ideally BW should do things these things in the background (e.g. Cerberus login waits for the user to click the Any-key before waiting 30s for a timeout...) but you should be able to get around this by using REJECT instead of DROP; note that DROP does not make your PC invisible (non-existent hosts result Destination Unreachable rather than packets being silently dropped)

Alternatively you could find out the addresses that the game connects to and add them to the host file as localhost that might take less time to get into the game.

That won't help if your firewall is silently dropping packages...

[kgersen]

AlanC9 wrote...
Locked doors don't necessarily stop burglars,
fences don't keep anyone really determined from getting over them. And
yet we still have both locks and fences.

Apples vs
Oranges comparison, burglars don't have the ability to enter your house
remotely from the comfort of their home with nearly no chances at all of
ever being seen or caught. If they could then yes locked doors, fences,
or whatever would be totally useless.

AlanC9 wrote...
The problem with a "slippery slope" argument like this is that you end up
arguing against something that isn't unacceptable in the name of
fighting some hypothetical issue in the future that might be
unacceptable. Am I supposed to pretend to be bothered by the current DRM
because I'll actually be bothered by a future DRM?

It's not any "slipperier " than pretending that just because you refuse to
consider there might be an issue someday down the road then nothing bad
will ever happens. Especially as issues with DRM already have happened
before (Circuit City's DIVX, MSN music, Amazon Kindle disappearing book,
etc...).

Also acceptable/unacceptable is a purely subjective matter.

Modifié par kgersen, 05 mars 2011 - 09:09 .

[AlanC9]

kgersen wrote...
Apples vs
Oranges comparison, burglars don't have the ability to enter your house
remotely from the comfort of their home with nearly no chances at all of
ever being seen or caught. If they could then yes locked doors, fences,
or whatever would be totally useless.

The point is that 100% security isn't necessary for a successful outcome in either case. 

It's not any "slipperier " than pretending that just because you refuse to
consider there might be an issue someday down the road then nothing bad
will ever happens. Especially as issues with DRM already have happened
before (Circuit City's DIVX, MSN music, Amazon Kindle disappearing book,
etc...).

What were the issues with DIVX? I remember silly paranoia about privacy, but not any actual failures of the technology.

And yeah, unacceptable is subjective. I consider the current scheme acceptable. If they ever come up with a scheme I consider unacceptable I ... won't accept it. But what does that have to do with the current scheme.

[konjad]

Here's an important info about DA2's DRM system:



r00fles!

[dtmoss]

^^^ That's from one of the console versions I bet.

Modifié par dtmoss, 06 mars 2011 - 07:13 .

[heretica]

That's such an insult, tbh.

[Narrsan]

No DRM on consoles. ****ing hell.

[randName]

Thank you for this, and I hear through the grapevine that while people have the game; they can't crack the date protection; as with dead space 2. I'm impressed, and I hope it will hold to the 8th.

A much better solution than the old DRM for sure

[dtmoss]

Release dates are kind of a conundrum because on one hand I feel like there should be a set time so everyone can get ready and knows when they can begin playing, but on the other hand if people manage to get legal copies early it seems slightly silly that they can't use their product.

[StingingVelvet]

Narrsan wrote...

No DRM on consoles. ****ing hell.

They have DRM on consoles, just not on discs.  To use DLC, patches or downloaded games though you must deal with account-based DRM similar to Steam's.

In any event, sales are higher on consoles which is why piracy is less of a deal.  If the PC version did 50% of the copies sold then piracy complaints would be a lot lower in volume, but PC sales are a distant 3rd.  It's all about money in the end, nothing else.

Also I would guess Microsoft and Sony would need to enact or at least approve of any DRM for disc-based console games.

[AlexMBrennan]

I'd have thought that DRM would be much easier (i.e. possible without breaking the laws of physics) on console since you can only run the official OS that could quite easily require all executables to be signed by publishers (making it impossible to bypass disk checks, online activation, etc).

[randName]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Narrsan wrote...

No DRM on consoles. ****ing hell.

They have DRM on consoles, just not on discs.  To use DLC, patches or downloaded games though you must deal with account-based DRM similar to Steam's.

In any event, sales are higher on consoles which is why piracy is less of a deal.  If the PC version did 50% of the copies sold then piracy complaints would be a lot lower in volume, but PC sales are a distant 3rd.  It's all about money in the end, nothing else.

Also I would guess Microsoft and Sony would need to enact or at least approve of any DRM for disc-based console games.

Shouldn't that be 33,3~%? It's not as the PS3 and the XBox is one and the same.

Otherwise I agree, just being a nitpicking arse.

+1

Modifié par randName, 06 mars 2011 - 11:15 .

[aries1001]

DA2 will be using a product called 'release date control' made by the same company that makes Securom. Release Date Control (RDC) is a different product than Securom is. It installs, and self-un-installs after the game has been activated. I also like the idea that no periodcial checks are being made.

[Travie]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Narrsan wrote...

No DRM on consoles. ****ing hell.

They have DRM on consoles, just not on discs.  To use DLC, patches or downloaded games though you must deal with account-based DRM similar to Steam's.

In any event, sales are higher on consoles which is why piracy is less of a deal.  If the PC version did 50% of the copies sold then piracy complaints would be a lot lower in volume, but PC sales are a distant 3rd.  It's all about money in the end, nothing else.

Also I would guess Microsoft and Sony would need to enact or at least approve of any DRM for disc-based console games.

Huh? Last sales figures I saw it was PS3 in 3rd, with PC and Xbox selling around the same amount. 

[b0adicea]

Good finally I can buy a game and play it vs downloading the no cd cracks and such

[In Exile]

pkmn wrote...

 Why doesn't Bioware punish console gamers with intrusive DRM?

I don't mind DRM that much, but it's insulting to be singled out and called a criminal.

Well, they are punished with the fact they have a console in the first place.

Beyond that, DRM is a standard feature of the console hardware. It's built in and universal. The fact a PC is effectively modular means this sort of DRM is impossible on the PC and has to be software based.

[StingingVelvet]

Travie wrote...

Huh? Last sales figures I saw it was PS3 in 3rd, with PC and Xbox selling around the same amount.

Link?

And I was speaking in general anyway, not about one specific game.

[Mihai Hornet]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mihai Hornet wrote...
Online activation will not stop DA2 for being cracked as no kind of DRM ever accomplished for a game. Then why are they doing it?

Locked doors don't necessarily stop burglars, fences don't keep anyone really determined from getting over them. And yet we still have both locks and fences.

1. Online activation - get used with the idea that you need Internet connection to play single player, you have to be authorized to play the game, paves way for point 2.
    ("doesn't bother me", "you are on the internet right now") - for you it obviously worked.
1a. Always online to play/periodic checks - enforce point 1.
2. Limited installs - don't think you can install and play the game as many times you want. Not without our permission anyway.
   ("5 installs are enough") - what is you limit? 5? 15? 150?
3. Online account- you must sign online with us to play our games.
4.DLC - you download content and must activate it online. Long gone are the days when bonus content was available for free. You never get the full game and you need an account and to be online to play DLC. Have you noticed that DLC is already available for DA2? You pay $60 for DA2 and already $7 for DLC. This proves my point.
5, Online gaming services (GFWL -Microsoft want's a slice of the pie too, steam) - we can control your games, when you install them and when you play them.

Itals mine. When was that, exactly? 

The problem with a "slippery slope" argument like this is that you end up arguing against something that isn't unacceptable in the name of fighting some hypothetical issue in the future that might be unacceptable. Am I supposed to pretend to be bothered by the current DRM because I'll actually be bothered by a future DRM?

DRM is 0% security or should I say 100% failure, please give me ONE example of a game that wasn't cracked yet. Please do, I really want to know. It makes perfect sense to wonder if DRM is really about preventing piracy.
So far locks and fences have done a much better job at preventing burglars. On the oher hand, it depends on your neigbourhood.

I don't see what's "slippery". Points 1 to 5 are from real life already. Should I remind you about Spore, Bioshock, Mass Effect? Could limited installs have been possible without gamers bending over to online activation (the "you are on the internet right now" argument)? Is limited installs ok for you? Is it ok being forced to install steam or GFWL and create online accounts when you buy the box? Or how about DLC, isn't the trend clear for you yet?

To me it doesn't look like a "slippery slope" but more like a "foot in the door".

But, let's say I'm paranoid, things will not get beyond online activation, limited installs, DLC and online gaming services exist only in my imagination. I will NOT buy DA2 because of online activation alone. 

And you are not supposed to pretend anything because I'm not preaching anithying, this is my opinion.

Modifié par Mihai Hornet, 06 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[GreyLord]

pkmn wrote...

 Why doesn't Bioware punish console gamers with intrusive DRM?

I don't mind DRM that much, but it's insulting to be singled out and called a criminal.

Because EA actually CARES about how many sales they get on the Consoles?

I know I'm not getting it on the PC now, but I'm still getting it on the PS3.  DRM is a BIG reason I do a LOT of PS3 gaming these days.

[AlanC9]

Mihai Hornet wrote...
DRM is 0% security or should I say 100% failure, please give me ONE example of a game that wasn't cracked yet.

Huh? Never said there was. Did I somehow imply it?

I don't see what's "slippery". Points 1 to 5 are from real life already. Should I remind you about Spore, Bioshock, Mass Effect?

Points 1 to 5 don't bother me.

Could limited installs have been possible without gamers bending over to online activation (the "you are on the internet right now" argument)? Is limited installs ok for you? Is it ok being forced to install steam or GFWL and create online accounts when you buy the box? Or how about DLC, isn't the trend clear for you yet?

Again, all fine with me.