260 réponses à ce sujet

[MacMurphy]

 paranoia and ignorence. people... 

[Garak2]

MacMurphy wrote...

 paranoia and ignorence. people... 

The irony of misspelling ignorance.

[MacMurphy]

Garak2 wrote...

MacMurphy wrote...

 paranoia and ignorence. people... 

The irony of misspelling ignorance.

i stand corrected.

[RiouHotaru]

Wow, so because the same team made it the date release check, and it makes a folder called 'SecuROM' it obviously must be SecuROM despite the fact two threads say it's not true and the DRM thread explicitly stated how the date release check works!

Good lord people you must really, REALLY want to look for a reason to get mad, huh?

[Chadthesad]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Wow, so because the same team made it the date release check, and it makes a folder called 'SecuROM' it obviously must be SecuROM despite the fact two threads say it's not true and the DRM thread explicitly stated how the date release check works!

Good lord people you must really, REALLY want to look for a reason to get mad, huh?

Yes, they're just being irrational. Nothing was installed on my end, so no idea what the fuss is about.

[MrBigCat]

Ok, I am sorry but I am really confused here.

You claim that you do not use Securom, but if you go to the website for Securom, - www2.securom.com/Pre-Load-Pre-Order.85.0.html - look under the Digital rights Management section of the Solutions page there (along with other SecuROM Solutions) is SecuROM Release Control. Is that not the solution that Dragon Age 2 uses or isn't it?

If that is indeed the solution the game uses (and I am certainly open to being wrong), it seems to me a bit of doublespeak to suggest we do not use SecuRom when you clearly mean we do use Securom we just don't use the DRM solution most gamers think of when we use the term "Securom."

Modifié par MrBigCat, 13 mars 2011 - 08:57 .

[RiouHotaru]

Chadthesad wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Wow, so because the same team made it the date release check, and it makes a folder called 'SecuROM' it obviously must be SecuROM despite the fact two threads say it's not true and the DRM thread explicitly stated how the date release check works!

Good lord people you must really, REALLY want to look for a reason to get mad, huh?

Yes, they're just being irrational. Nothing was installed on my end, so no idea what the fuss is about.

Because the date release check was made by the same team that made SecuROM so people automatically assume it's some conspiracy to sneak it into the game.  Which is of course a lie.  Inert and benign registry entries that aren't executable and are easily deleted =/= malware.

[Karathandir]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Wow, so because the same team made it the date release check, and it makes a folder called 'SecuROM' it obviously
must be SecuROM despite the fact two threads say it's not true and the
DRM thread explicitly stated how the date release check works!

Good lord people you must really, REALLY want to look for a reason to get mad, huh?

Or
the fact that EA was sued for failing to inform customers that the DRM
was included in the free trial versions of certain games. Or the fact
that Ars is reporting that it is SecureROM and several others are having
DRM related issues. Yep I just look for any silly old reason to get out the pitch forks. Oh and I BELIEVE everything any company has to say on this matter because they would never not include its DRM. Oh wait they got sued once for that already....

Irrational indeed

Modifié par Karathandir, 13 mars 2011 - 09:12 .

[element eater]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Because the date release check was made by the same team that made SecuROM so people automatically assume it's some conspiracy to sneak it into the game.  Which is of course a lie.  Inert and benign registry entries that aren't executable and are easily deleted =/= malware.

maybe so but it was there fault for not explaining initialy that what was included would be displayed as securicom regardless of the software used they brought it on themselves  what do expect people to think if they see something listed as securicom on there pc

[MrBigCat]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Because the date release check was made by the same team that made SecuROM so people automatically assume it's some conspiracy to sneak it into the game.  Which is of course a lie.  Inert and benign registry entries that aren't executable and are easily deleted =/= malware.

Let us set aside, for the moment, the argument over whether the solution Dragon Age II uses can be considered "Securom" or not.

Don't you think it looks rather likely Bioware purposely tried to distance themsleves from Sony and SecuRom by obscuring if not out and out hiding the connection thier solution had with the above becuase they knew some gamers might find it objectionable.

Modifié par MrBigCat, 13 mars 2011 - 09:12 .

[Kloreep]

Chris, perhaps this does not bear the closest relation to the "is it SecuROM" question addressed here, but I'm interested in what's going to happen to the release control now that DA2 is past release date. (At least, it is in most places, I think?) It seems like there is no reason for it to remain now. So is it going to be removed right off by any patches, or is there some legal or other reason that it must stay?

Basically, I'm wondering about these two cases:

-I install a disk version of DA2. I immediately patch it before trying to run it. Will I have to go through the DADC Release Control again, or will the patch have removed it already by replacing the .exe?

-I install a freshly downloaded digital version (Impulse, etc) that has already been updated by the digital store to a new patch version. Will it come without the Release Control?

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Hi, playing DA2 on PC. I'm pretty sure I wasn't logged in to anything and had the upload feedback stuff turned off, and still got a message in game that I think server connection lost or something similar. It showed up where the quest info and completion text is above the portraits. If no DRM what was this about then? Some bug where I'm still connected to your servers regardless of settings?

They never said no DRM, they said no SecuROM DRM. It was stated in both the initial and final DRM FAQ that the game would/does use EA Account DRM.

That said, what you are seeing is not DRM as far as I know. You are only supposed to have to be on-line the first time you run the game after installation. After that, internet access should only be necessary if you want the game uploading progress stats to the website here.

[Shirosaki17]

I understand that, but I'm sure I saw a server connection lost message on my screen when I shouldn't have been connected at all to them. I'm sure my internet connection just dropped for a moment, but are you somehow automatically connected to their servers regardless of  settings? Or is it just a bug? Or is it just a default message when it detects your internet connection goes down?

I mean can anyone else confirm this by unplugging their internet while in game and looking above portraits for message for 30 to 60 seconds?

Modifié par Shirosaki17, 13 mars 2011 - 09:38 .

[Akitoscorpio]

Honestly, I'm a firm believer in the concept of the "Vocal Minority" The Vocal minority in this case cares about software that makes sure you can run a game before the release date, face reality, this is hardly the first game to use such software, Borderlands comes to mind.

[Kloreep]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

are you somehow automatically connected to their servers regardless of  settings?

If it's like DAO or ME2, yes. If you look in Options, there should be something to the effect of "log in me automatically" that will be ticked. Un-tick it if you prefer.

[Shirosaki17]

Akitoscorpio wrote...

Honestly, I'm a firm believer in the concept of the "Vocal Minority" The Vocal minority in this case cares about software that makes sure you can run a game before the release date, face reality, this is hardly the first game to use such software, Borderlands comes to mind.

Read this
http://latimesblogs....-securom-d.html

[jeinasindorei]

Saying the SecuROM release control is the same thing as the SecuROM DRM would be like saying Dragon Age 2 is the same thing as Dragon Age: Origins.

[Akitoscorpio]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Akitoscorpio wrote...

Honestly, I'm a firm believer in the concept of the "Vocal Minority" The Vocal minority in this case cares about software that makes sure you can run a game before the release date, face reality, this is hardly the first game to use such software, Borderlands comes to mind.

Read this
http://latimesblogs....-securom-d.html

http://www.spore.com...re/Akitoscorpio

Being a lone time Spore player myself, yeah I'm painfully familer with the DRM conterversy behind it, at the same time though like probbly 90% of the people who played the game, I never really took issue with the DRM on the game, I only have it on two computers, a laptop and a desktop, so, go figure, it's never been an issue for me.

Modifié par Akitoscorpio, 13 mars 2011 - 10:01 .

[Garak2]

jeinasindorei wrote...

Saying the SecuROM release control is the same thing as the SecuROM DRM would be like saying Dragon Age 2 is the same thing as Dragon Age: Origins.

Securom Release Control = Securom DRM because release control is DRM.

Digital Restrictions Management, doesn't release control put restrictions on the consumer?

Now it is not the same type of Securom DRM that so many hate, but it is Securom and it is DRM. People have every reason to distrust the securom brand.

[RiouHotaru]

MrBigCat wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
Because the date release check was made by the same team that made SecuROM so people automatically assume it's some conspiracy to sneak it into the game.  Which is of course a lie.  Inert and benign registry entries that aren't executable and are easily deleted =/= malware.

Let us set aside, for the moment, the argument over whether the solution Dragon Age II uses can be considered "Securom" or not.

Don't you think it looks rather likely Bioware purposely tried to distance themsleves from Sony and SecuRom by obscuring if not out and out hiding the connection thier solution had with the above becuase they knew some gamers might find it objectionable.

Okay you're right, let's set aside whether the date release check is SecuROM since that argument could go in circles.

As for your second point?  No, I don't think so.  It wouldn't make any sense for them to be shady about it, especially since it seems it was inevitable that people would find it anyway.  RYG.com (which for some reason is no longer working) made the announcement about the supposed "SecuROM", so the discovery that the program was made by the same team was an inevitable outcome.

So it makes no sense for Bioware to be shady about it.  My opinion, is that Bioware honestly does not believe the date release check is the same as SecuROM, and thus chose not to mention who made it.  After all, DRM exists all over the place today and with the exception of SecuROM, nobody really seems to care which team makes it.  Or, if we assume the use of the date check was the decision of EA rather than Bioware, than replace every instance of Bioware in my statement with 'EA'

[RiouHotaru]

Karathandir wrote...
Or
the fact that EA was sued for failing to inform customers that the DRM
was included in the free trial versions of certain games. Or the fact
that Ars is reporting that it is SecureROM and several others are having
DRM related issues. Yep I just look for any silly old reason to get out the pitch forks. Oh and I BELIEVE everything any company has to say on this matter because they would never not include its DRM. Oh wait they got sued once for that already....

Irrational indeed

Ars is only reporting it because Reclaimyourgame.com reported it, and Reclaimyourgame is offline now.  If you read the thread, you'll notice the guy from the site basically declaring victory right up until Fernando came out and said "What you're finding is the release check, here's why." and explains it.  Now suddenly the guy from RYG stops posting and the website inexplicibly goes down.

Also, if EA already had a class-action suit filed against them once, why in the world would they attempt it a second time if people were already closely watching them to make sure it didn't happen again.  It makes NO sense.

[jeinasindorei]

Garak2 wrote...

jeinasindorei wrote...

Saying the SecuROM release control is the same thing as the SecuROM DRM would be like saying Dragon Age 2 is the same thing as Dragon Age: Origins.

Securom Release Control = Securom DRM because release control is DRM.

Digital Restrictions Management, doesn't release control put restrictions on the consumer?

Now it is not the same type of Securom DRM that so many hate, but it is Securom and it is DRM. People have every reason to distrust the securom brand.

The Release Control is used to prevent people from activating and playing the game prior to the release date.

The SecuROM DRM is put in place to prevent illegal copying and distribution of the game.

They don't even remotely serve the same purpose.

You can't paint everything with the same brush just because it's done by the same company. Releasing one questionable program doesn't mean all programs released are questionable.

[Garak2]

jeinasindorei wrote...

Garak2 wrote...

jeinasindorei wrote...

Saying the SecuROM release control is the same thing as the SecuROM DRM would be like saying Dragon Age 2 is the same thing as Dragon Age: Origins.

Securom Release Control = Securom DRM because release control is DRM.

Digital Restrictions Management, doesn't release control put restrictions on the consumer?

Now it is not the same type of Securom DRM that so many hate, but it is Securom and it is DRM. People have every reason to distrust the securom brand.

The Release Control is used to prevent people from activating and playing the game prior to the release date.

The SecuROM DRM is put in place to prevent illegal copying and distribution of the game.

They don't even remotely serve the same purpose.

You can't paint everything with the same brush just because it's done by the same company. Releasing one questionable program doesn't mean all programs released are questionable.

Yes, yes, yes we agree that release control is not the same as copy protection but they are both DRM. DRM is not limited to copy protection, it can do all kinds of things like copy protection, install limits, activations (recurring or one time), release control, play at once limits (two people can't log in at the same time on the same account) and other stuff I am not thinking of.

So, release control is indeed DRM and this paticular release control is made by Sony DADC, just like Securom and they even give you a Securom link. No doubt you can agree this is indeed Securom DRM.

I already said it's not the same stuff people hate but it is Securom DRM and to say otherwise is deceptive.

[djwyattwood]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Karathandir wrote...
Or
the fact that EA was sued for failing to inform customers that the DRM
was included in the free trial versions of certain games. Or the fact
that Ars is reporting that it is SecureROM and several others are having
DRM related issues. Yep I just look for any silly old reason to get out the pitch forks. Oh and I BELIEVE everything any company has to say on this matter because they would never not include its DRM. Oh wait they got sued once for that already....

Irrational indeed

Ars is only reporting it because Reclaimyourgame.com reported it, and Reclaimyourgame is offline now.  If you read the thread, you'll notice the guy from the site basically declaring victory right up until Fernando came out and said "What you're finding is the release check, here's why." and explains it.  Now suddenly the guy from RYG stops posting and the website inexplicibly goes down.

Also, if EA already had a class-action suit filed against them once, why in the world would they attempt it a second time if people were already closely watching them to make sure it didn't happen again.  It makes NO sense.

So why did they themselves call it Dragon Age II Release Control when it is Sony SecuROM Release Control? You don't think people wouldn't buy it once they saw SecuROM regardless of what it was? They knew that if they said SecuROM anywhere (no matter if it is the same DRM) they would get less sales. They intentially left out who made the DRM when saying what it was so they could sell more copies. This is the very defnition of shady.

Also: Good luck to all of us who try to play our legal copies once the authentication servers are taken down.

Modifié par djwyattwood, 13 mars 2011 - 10:47 .

[BaronIveagh]

I'm sorry to but in but when it gives me an error, along with a securom version number, and tells me to contact securom, I would suspect that SecuROM may be involved here...

[RiouHotaru]

djwyattwood wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Karathandir wrote...
Or
the fact that EA was sued for failing to inform customers that the DRM
was included in the free trial versions of certain games. Or the fact
that Ars is reporting that it is SecureROM and several others are having
DRM related issues. Yep I just look for any silly old reason to get out the pitch forks. Oh and I BELIEVE everything any company has to say on this matter because they would never not include its DRM. Oh wait they got sued once for that already....

Irrational indeed

Ars is only reporting it because Reclaimyourgame.com reported it, and Reclaimyourgame is offline now.  If you read the thread, you'll notice the guy from the site basically declaring victory right up until Fernando came out and said "What you're finding is the release check, here's why." and explains it.  Now suddenly the guy from RYG stops posting and the website inexplicibly goes down.

Also, if EA already had a class-action suit filed against them once, why in the world would they attempt it a second time if people were already closely watching them to make sure it didn't happen again.  It makes NO sense.

So why did they themselves call it Dragon Age II Release Control when it is Sony SecuROM Release Control? You don't think people wouldn't buy it once they saw SecuROM regardless of what it was? They knew that if they said SecuROM anywhere (no matter if it is the same DRM) they would get less sales. They intentially left out who made the DRM when saying what it was so they could sell more copies. This is the very defnition of shady.

Also: Good luck to all of us who try to play our legal copies once the authentication servers are taken down.

Implying of course that there won't be a solution by then, yes?  How very optimistic of you.