945 réponses à ce sujet

[Lacan2]

This is good to know. Thank you, Fernando.

[Turumbar]

Hi Fernando,

Thanks for explaining more about the situation.
Part of the problem is that secureROM is flagged a just a step short of a rootkit. As you know, rootkits go to great extent to hide their presence. So when someone comes and find traces of a know (almost) rootkit, it is not so wild to assume the WHOLE rootkit is there. It might be wrong, but it is erring on the side of caution.

My point is, The hate for secureROM is such now that just the mention of it, or the posibiity of it are enough to taint a good game. EA/Bioware made a mistake by choosing a product from the same company that made secureROM. Even if they are wildly different.

[Mage One]

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.

[uDoh]

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?

[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.

[Garak2]

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.

Modifié par Garak2, 12 mars 2011 - 09:15 .

[Azure Sky]

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.

[RiouHotaru]

Thank you Fernando for your support and attentive-ness to this issue. I noticed that Sblade (or whoever it was from RYG) hasn't come back to make any more claims. But at least you confirmed what most of us already knew, so that's a relief. Thanks for keeping in touch!

[uDoh]

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.

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.

[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. 

[Godeshus]

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

Modifié par Godeshus, 12 mars 2011 - 09:38 .

[philbo1965uk]

@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 !

[Garak2]

Fernando Melo wrote...

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. 

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.

[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. 

[uDoh]

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

Well said

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.

Modifié par uDoh, 12 mars 2011 - 09:49 .

[Lux]

Garak2 wrote...

I still say though, that a release control is DRM

A temporary DRM in order to safeguard distribution arrangements.

Speaking of which, Stardock is working on a similar product. Perhaps EA execs could have a word with Brad Wardell.

and the people who made it are throwing securom links at us. You draw the conclusion.

I conclude that:
- those guys at Sony were obtuse in execution and BioWare is cleaning up unnecessary mess
- it's not the DRM SecuROM but a release date mechanism borrowing code from Sony's DRM
- a false alarm was triggered from SecuROM detection tools due to borrowed code
- the reg entries are bothersome but inert
- BioWare did not lie on the type of DRM that came with the game itself
- Sony can suck it

Modifié par Merkar, 12 mars 2011 - 09:48 .

[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.

Modifié par Fernando Melo, 12 mars 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.

[philbo1965uk]

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.

[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.

[Godeshus]

@Fernando:

When I say you I don't mean YOU. I mean Bioware/EA.

There's a big difference between saying "There will be no secureROM drm" and "There will be no secureROM" and then have people find files signed with a secureROM signature after installing your game. (not YOUR game, fernando )

The better approach would be to release the information via a news header, telling the customer exactly what he is to expect.

"No there is no DRM". We did use another product by securerom and it is possible that there are files left over from it, however it's important to note that....."

"For those who are unfamiliar with the product this is what distinguishes them..."

Even provide links to secureROM website and the solution you chose. This is what trust between a consumer and business is about. It is a great feeling for a consumer to know that he can completely trust supplier. That kind of attitude makes fiercely loyal fans.

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

Modifié par Godeshus, 12 mars 2011 - 10:20 .

[Godeshus]

It appears that philbo addressed my point quite eloquently.

[philbo1965uk]

Fernando Melo wrote...

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.

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

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

[Kurzan]

I just installed the game, but cannot actually play it because the SecuROM date check is telling me that it failed during the attempt. Marvellous. It then tells you to go to a website that does not actually work. Genious. I am so incredibly impressed by this.

[Godeshus]

Oops, I meant to say uDoh posted what I was getting at. Philbo is foolish. I do not agree with him.

@Philbo: There is no DRM. Go hate somewhere else.