260 réponses à ce sujet

[Leharic]

So I read this whole thread. Anyone know how I can ignore users' posts?

[Kloreep]

WanderingIdler wrote...

If preventing pre-release usage was the genuine purpose, then it would need only a check of the clock on the computer (followed by a check on an NTP server if connected online to confirm the time).

Umm, what? An on-line check is absolutely necessary.

Unplug your ethernet cable. Then double or single click, depending on your version of Windows, on your clock in the lower right. Change the time to after the release date. Voila, you pass your proposed version of the release date control, whether or not the date has really come.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the RC that was used worked by not just wrapping the executable, but encrypting it so that it was so much gibberish. That encryption stood because the key was nowhere to be found, and continued to be so until the release date came and the SecuROM servers started handing it out. And so, as long as it was properly encrypted, the only way it would have been broken would have been by sheer brute force.

To accomplish an off-line unlock, they'd have to somehow package the key in the installation with the encrypted executable. Much less secure.

If you don't like DRM, fair enough. Right there with you. I don't like the RC check, and I don't like the EA Account DRM either. But the conspiracy theories being thrown around about the RC are just off the wall. That Bioware/EA acted regrettably is pretty clear, I think, especially considering points RYG raised like a lack of warning on the game box. But can't we at least credit them with some amount of good faith?

WanderingIdler wrote...

it should be clear to even the thickest fanboy that "Release Control" here is really Installation Control - the same purpose served by SecuROM Online.

If the RC DRM remains, then yes. I'm curious, however, whether it will remain. It seems to me completely doable to just patch it out. (After all, Installation Control is what the EA DRM is for. No need for a redundant layer. And since the RC exists in the executable, and the patch replaces the executable...)

I know I've asked in at least one of these threads whether it will be. No answer yet - I'm not surprised, I don't imagine we'll be seeing an answer to any questions about the patch until it's already here, that's generally Bioware's approach to patches.

Edit: And of course, 1.01 is already out, so maybe someone can say if it skips the RC altogether? I haven't bothered to download yet since I don't have any of the addressed problems.

Modifié par Kloreep, 17 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[Kloreep]

Leharic wrote...

So I read this whole thread. Anyone know how I can ignore users' posts?

I've looked for that before in other threads, but I think it's sadly unimplemented here.

[Togra_blah]

Well idk wtf with the DRM, all i know is it ran fine for me on XP, and i've had no issues stemming from it.

I also read (skimmed a few overly long paragraphs) this thread, and the most i can contribute is how to ignore users.

<<edit> whoops, forgot to space each sentence hehe easier on the eyes, i find>Left click thier Name, you should be taken to a view-their-profile thing, then <<edit> oops, it's Block actually, not ignore> user is an option on the left.

Not tested it, but i think that's what you're looking for.

Modifié par Togra_blah, 17 mars 2011 - 09:43 .

[Tirigon]

Kloreep wrote...

Leharic wrote...

So I read this whole thread. Anyone know how I can ignore users' posts?

I've looked for that before in other threads, but I think it's sadly unimplemented here.

You can, however, in the Forum click on the BioWare symbol under the title instead of the title itself, so you will only ses responses from BioWare employees (maybe mods too, used too rarely to know this)

[WanderingIdler]

Autolycus wrote...

And since you boast that you don't actually have the product under discussion, the credence given to your observations suffers considerably.

Umm....are you too stupid to notice the DA2 icon under my avatar? (and its for PC too if you care to check)

Well said - Thandal seems to miss an awful lot for a "systems expert".

Kloreep wrote...

WanderingIdler wrote...

If preventing pre-release usage was the genuine purpose, then it would need only a check of the clock on the computer (followed by a check on an NTP server if connected online to confirm the time).

Umm, what? An on-line check is absolutely necessary.

No it isn't - most people aren't going to be running incorrectly set clocks (Windows will by default synchronise them online) and those that do just to bypass this measure then can't run the game while online (due to the NTP check).

It's not infallible (the current system isn't either BTW, cracks aplenty for those who look) but it has the distinct advantages of no extra cost to EA/Bioware (online activation in contrast means server upkeep, bandwidth and most expensive of all, providing technical support to those who encounter problems) and no risk to users of having their game disabled.

Kloreep wrote...

If you don't like DRM, fair enough. Right there with you. I don't like the RC check, and I don't like the EA Account DRM either. But the conspiracy theories being thrown around about the RC are just off the wall. That Bioware/EA acted regrettably is pretty clear, I think, especially considering points RYG raised like a lack of warning on the game box. But can't we at least credit them with some amount of good faith?

Companies can make mistakes, yes. However if you look at EA's history, they were one of the first to use SecuROM Online with Spore in September 2008 and have used it since on Crysis Warhead, Mass Effect and Mirror's Edge (all games I boycotted solely due to DRM so that's another £60/US$100 you've lost out on, EA) so they're hardly novices at this. Their CEO John Riccitiello has stated that he thinks nobody cares about DRM and EA announced that this system would be used to disable games for anyone incurring a forum ban as far back as 2008 (and here we have history repeating itself).

There was considerable opposition to online activation for DA:O so it was released with only a media check, but the DLC required online activation so this does indicate a pattern of EA trying to slip in such DRM by stealth, with this latest relabeling exercise.

All this shows that EA is sensitive enough to media coverage to try to whitewash issues, but not enough to actually address them.

Kloreep wrote...

If the RC DRM remains, then yes. I'm curious, however, whether it will remain. It seems to me completely doable to just patch it out. (After all, Installation Control is what the EA DRM is for. No need for a redundant layer. And since the RC exists in the executable, and the patch replaces the executable...)

It's still present in the 2008 release of Spore so we can draw our conclusions from that. Also, since it would be present on the original copy of the game on CD/DVD, it couldn't be simply patched out of the game .exe file - a new installer would have to be supplied.

In addition the more obnoxious "activate on play" DRM used on Neverwinter Nights 1 Premium Modules is still present, even though it is no longer possible to buy most of them.

[Tirigon]

WanderingIdler wrote...

No it isn't - most people aren't going to be running incorrectly set clocks (Windows will by default synchronise them online) and those that do just to bypass this measure then can't run the game while online (due to the NTP check).

Not to mention that if you REALLY want to circumvent protection measures of any kind you could just google for a crack and get one in like 2 minutes...........

A course of action that is only encouraged by DRM by the way.

But why do I care, it´s not my sales EA is ruining.

[Seifz]

If you don't like DRM, fair enough. Right there with you. I don't like the RC check, and I don't like the EA Account DRM either. But the conspiracy theories being thrown around about the RC are just off the wall. That Bioware/EA acted regrettably is pretty clear, I think, especially considering points RYG raised like a lack of warning on the game box. But can't we at least credit them with some amount of good faith?

Good faith?  What the hell has EA ever done to earn some amount of good faith?

1.  They keep promising us sunset patches to remove DRM once it's no longer needed, but older games such as ME1 and Spore still have all of the ridiculous DRM they started with.  BioWare is no better at this, as the NWN Premium Modules still have their DRM, too.

2.  They require us to agree to a 28-page EULA that references even more lengthy, hard-to-read documents.  In these documents, we agree to allow them to collect pretty much any information they want from out computers including our browsing history and what programs we're running.  Why?  To make money from direct advertising, of course.  Greedy.

3.  They outright lied about SecuROM in Dragon Age II and then told us that we were all wrong when we called them on it.

4.  The DRM they used for DA2 has prevented thousands of legitimate customers from playing their games.  Indeed, I still cannot play my game 10 days after release because of a DRM failure.  They could patch out the DRM and let us play, but they won't do that.  I don't know why.  The pirates have been playing for more than a week now and they've even got all the DLC and bonus items unlocked in their version.

And this is just very recent history!  If you look back through the years, you'll see a very obvious pattern of evil and greed from EA.  They haven't done a damn thing to earn our trust or any amount of good faith whatsoever.

[Kloreep]

[quote]WanderingIdler wrote...

[quote]Kloreep wrote...

[quote]WanderingIdler wrote...

If preventing pre-release usage was the genuine purpose, then it would need only a check of the clock on the computer (followed by a check on an NTP server if connected online to confirm the time).[/quote]

Umm, what? An on-line check is absolutely necessary.[/quote]
No it isn't - most people aren't going to be running incorrectly set clocks (Windows will by default synchronise them online) and those that do just to bypass this measure then can't run the game while online (due to the NTP check).[/quote]

So basically, you're suggesting it should be turned in to the traditional DRM scheme - a redundant one, given the EA DRM is also there. As others say, those systems traditionally don't stand up long. A system under which it could be bypassed, by any means, defeats the purpose of a "release date control."[/quote]

As far as I know, the current system worked perfectly up until the earliest release zone hit "go." At that point, people went through IPs in that region to unlock early and the whole RC thing did seem to fall apart. Up until that release date arrived, though? Unless you can point me in the direction of a functional PC leak pre-dating that the RC did its job up until then, so far as I know. (And obviously you can't per site rules, but I'd take your word.) It fell apart because the encryption scheme simply wasn't designed to cope with a traditionally staggered release, not because the encryption itself didn't work. Like I said in my previous posts: it succeeded in its job because its job was limited, rather than the set-up-for-failure "let them play it except when they shouldn't!" mandate given to most DRM, that is expected to continue working after release.

[quote]WanderingIdler wrote...

Companies can make mistakes, yes. However if you look at EA's history, they were one of the first to use SecuROM Online with Spore in September 2008 and have used it since on Crysis Warhead, Mass Effect and Mirror's Edge (all games I boycotted solely due to DRM so that's another £60/US$100 you've lost out on, EA) so they're hardly novices at this. Their CEO John Riccitiello has stated that he thinks nobody cares about DRM and EA announced that this system would be used to disable games for anyone incurring a forum ban as far back as 2008 (and here we have history repeating itself).[/quote]

Good points. I certainly concede to them. I think I committed the sin of "responding" to your post with others' in mind. You seem to be taking the far more level-headed approach of: "intent is great, but how about some actual action?"

[quote]WanderingIdler wrote...

In addition the more obnoxious "activate on play" DRM used on Neverwinter Nights 1 Premium Modules is still present, even though it is no longer possible to buy most of them.[/quote]

Yes, it seems to me Bioware so far has no record of removing DRM. I can't say I derive much comfort from Fernando's earlier post about how they have "sunset plans" given cases like that.

Modifié par Kloreep, 18 mars 2011 - 05:46 .

[Kloreep]

Seifz wrote...

3.  They outright lied about SecuROM in Dragon Age II and then told us that we were all wrong when we called them on it.

This is the point on which I was arguing "good faith" - not the other ones you raise, just to be clear.

"Never attribute to malice..."

Seifz wrote...

4.  The DRM they used for DA2 has prevented thousands of legitimate customers from playing their games.  Indeed, I still cannot play my game 10 days after release because of a DRM failure.  They could patch out the DRM and let us play, but they won't do that.  I don't know why.  The pirates have been playing for more than a week now and they've even got all the DLC and bonus items unlocked in their version.

My sympathies. I hope they're at least trying to compensate you somehow.

This is one place I think we can all agree DRM sucks. No matter how well it addresses other points, there will always be customers for whom it does not work even though it's supposed to.

[Seifz]

Kloreep wrote...

Seifz wrote...

3.  They outright lied about SecuROM in Dragon Age II and then told us that we were all wrong when we called them on it.

This is the point on which I was arguing "good faith" - not the other ones you raise, just to be clear.

"Never attribute to malice..."

I'm willing to believe that Chris and the other BioWare folks who posted here about the DRM were ignorant of the truth.  I'm not willing to believe that whoever made the decision to include this DRM was likewise ignorant.

Seifz wrote...

4.  The DRM they used for DA2 has prevented thousands of legitimate customers from playing their games.  Indeed, I still cannot play my game 10 days after release because of a DRM failure.  They could patch out the DRM and let us play, but they won't do that.  I don't know why.  The pirates have been playing for more than a week now and they've even got all the DLC and bonus items unlocked in their version.

My sympathies. I hope they're at least trying to compensate you somehow.

This is one place I think we can all agree DRM sucks. No matter how well it addresses other points, there will always be customers for whom it does not work even though it's supposed to.

They're  not even responding to us anymore.

Modifié par Seifz, 18 mars 2011 - 06:50 .

[DocRemo]

So if the insidious DRM known as SecuRom is present after installing DA2, just where EXACTLY is the executable file that launches the program? WHERE is it and how does it affect my computer? To all you "computer experts" who have nothing better to do than complain about how you were lied to, now's the time to show how intelligent you are. Where do I look on my computer (running XP) to find this phantom program? My install of DA2 is running fine. I don't have to insert a disk to play and I get no messages popping up saying, "WARNING! Your computer has just been corrupted by SecuRom." If any of the previous posters demeaning Bioware can't answer these questions, I suggest that you refrain from corrupting these forums with your mindless speculations.

[MartinPham]

Seifz wrote...

If you don't like DRM, fair enough. Right there with you. I don't like the RC check, and I don't like the EA Account DRM either. But the conspiracy theories being thrown around about the RC are just off the wall. That Bioware/EA acted regrettably is pretty clear, I think, especially considering points RYG raised like a lack of warning on the game box. But can't we at least credit them with some amount of good faith?

Good faith?  What the hell has EA ever done to earn some amount of good faith?

1.  They keep promising us sunset patches to remove DRM once it's no longer needed, but older games such as ME1 and Spore still have all of the ridiculous DRM they started with.  BioWare is no better at this, as the NWN Premium Modules still have their DRM, too.

2.  They require us to agree to a 28-page EULA that references even more lengthy, hard-to-read documents.  In these documents, we agree to allow them to collect pretty much any information they want from out computers including our browsing history and what programs we're running.  Why?  To make money from direct advertising, of course.  Greedy.

3.  They outright lied about SecuROM in Dragon Age II and then told us that we were all wrong when we called them on it.

4.  The DRM they used for DA2 has prevented thousands of legitimate customers from playing their games.  Indeed, I still cannot play my game 10 days after release because of a DRM failure.  They could patch out the DRM and let us play, but they won't do that.  I don't know why.  The pirates have been playing for more than a week now and they've even got all the DLC and bonus items unlocked in their version.

And this is just very recent history!  If you look back through the years, you'll see a very obvious pattern of evil and greed from EA.  They haven't done a damn thing to earn our trust or any amount of good faith whatsoever.

Well said. And yes, it was merely a week ago since all of this started.

Modifié par MartinPham, 18 mars 2011 - 11:44 .

[Tirigon]

Seifz wrote...

4.  The DRM they used for DA2 has prevented thousands of legitimate customers from playing their games.  Indeed, I still cannot play my game 10 days after release because of a DRM failure.  They could patch out the DRM and let us play, but they won't do that.  I don't know why.  The pirates have been playing for more than a week now and they've even got all the DLC and bonus items unlocked in their version.

That´s the sh!t....

But, really, it doesn´t surprise me. I keep saying that EA has done more to encourage piracy (at least with regards to games, not with other software and music of course) than BitTorrent, RapidShare and The PirateBay together.....

[neppakyo]

Amen Trigon!

Year or so back I bought Need for Speed undercover, never played it online, then one day I went to do the online part, and I couldnt. It seems my key was in use, and emails to EA politely told me Im SOL. I couldn't even play the offline play, even after re-installing it after a windows wipe.

Its sad when you need to get a crack for a game you bought because of EA a ssholiage.

[WanderingIdler]

Kloreep wrote...

So basically, you're suggesting it should be turned in to the traditional DRM scheme - a redundant one, given the EA DRM is also there. As others say, those systems traditionally don't stand up long. A system under which it could be bypassed, by any means, defeats the purpose of a "release date control."

No I'm not - first the online check would be optional and secondly it would involve a connection to an NTP server of which there are thousands worldwide (see Wikipedia: Network Time Protocol for more info) rather than a single authorisation server.

Kloreep wrote...

It fell apart because the encryption scheme simply wasn't designed to cope with a traditionally staggered release, not because the encryption itself didn't work. Like I said in my previous posts: it succeeded in its job because its job was limited, rather than the set-up-for-failure "let them play it except when they shouldn't!" mandate given to most DRM, that is expected to continue working after release.

Which begs the question, why didn't Sony/EA make adequate provision for this? This has happened previously (notably with Valve's Steam) so it should be a no-brainer to provide extra capacity during the first few days of release. This cycle of failure suggests that saving money is a more important concern than supporting paying consumers.

Ironically, if they had chosen to BitTorrent to distribute the decryption code, users would likely have had a better experience - just like those who've used BitTorrent to bypass this activation requirement completely.

Kloreep wrote...
Good points. I certainly concede to them.  I think I committed the sin of "responding" to your post with others' in mind. You seem to be taking the far more level-headed approach of: "intent is great, but how about some actual action?"

It does seem too easy for people to get the wrong idea of such systems and SecuROM has been a particular case of confusion, since they have been involved in 2 types of "user control" systems. Their media check system has (and quite rightly so) attracted the most criticism due to its intrusiveness (including until fairly recently, preventing the use of some mainstream utilities).

SecuROM Online hasn't attracted such comment - the main issue being reported is that of unfortunate users like Seifz who find themselves blocked by it, and don't get proper service from EA to fix it. However the big problem with such systems is that they require a working Internet connection on install (most connection problems may be resolved quickly but disruptions due to a broken cable or something similar can take days or weeks to fix), a working authorisation server at the other end (so bye bye games should Sony DADC cease operation for any reason) and a valid account on that server. Most people miss the last point which matters because it gives EA/Bioware and Sony the ability to revoke your legitimately purchased game at any time (as well as stopping you from reselling it which is likely the main purpose of this DRM).

The problem here is that online activation is rather like smoking - the problems aren't visible up-front for most people (look at the number of "It's worked for me!" posts in this and related threads) but they are there and increase over time. The likelihood of Dragon Age 2 still being installable 10 years from now is greatly reduced by the use of online activation and if you care about game longevity (you should if you paid for it) this should be a serious consideration. Promises about future DRM-removal should be taken with extreme scepticism given EA/Bioware's past (i.e. non-existent) record on this, not least since doing so for a 5-10 year old game is going to be difficult and costly (see Shamus Young's Authorization Servers article for the reasons why).

As such, while I can sympathise with those who choose to demonise SecuROM (with references like "rootkit" being more appropriate to their media check) it doesn't highlight the real problems in my view. It is also probably why we have this farcial renaming exercise ("It is NOT SecuROM, it is something else that just happens to do the same thing and is written by the same people...").

DocRemo wrote...

So if the insidious DRM known as SecuRom is present after installing DA2, just where EXACTLY is the executable file that launches the program? WHERE is it and how does it affect my computer?

It is mostly contained in the installer that runs from the DVD/CD (assuming you have a physical copy of DA2). There will also be a component within the game executable itself that checks your system setup every time you run DA2, to see if it is basically the same as when you activated your copy (see SecuROM's FAQ 2.17). This second part is used to stop someone from installing/activating on PC 1 and copying the files en-masse to PCs 2, 3 and 4 but it does mean that a "significant" hardware change on your system will then require reactivation - resulting in a lost game if SecuROM have closed shop or disabled your account.

What constitutes a "significant" hardware change? Depends on what SecuROM have decided and unlike Microsoft with its Windows Product Activation they've not disclosed any details. However it does mean your copy of DA2 is tied to SecuROM's (and EA/Bioware's) terms and conditions and even if you have successfully activated it, you have no guarantee of it still working after a hardware change.

DocRemo wrote...

To all you "computer experts" who have nothing better to do than complain about how you were lied to, now's the time to show how intelligent you are. Where do I look on my computer (running XP) to find this phantom program? My install of DA2 is running fine...If any of the previous posters demeaning Bioware can't answer these questions, I suggest that you refrain from corrupting these forums with your mindless speculations.

Hopefully the above details should answer your questions, but this point of view does emphasise how difficult it can be in highlighting the risks that online activation represents to consumers. There's not yet been a major DRM disaster in the gaming industry but several music stores using similar online DRM have (or are about to) shut down causing consumers to lose access to the products they previously paid for.

Modifié par WanderingIdler, 19 mars 2011 - 12:45 .

[Neku054]

http://gamrfeed.vgch...-dragon-age-ii/

secuROM is being installed into your computers. done

EDIT: i do know the article is days old but jut thought i should share it

Modifié par Neku054, 19 mars 2011 - 04:54 .

[Shirosaki17]

Seifz wrote...
2.  They require us to agree to a 28-page EULA that references even more lengthy, hard-to-read documents.  In these documents, we agree to allow them to collect pretty much any information they want from out computers including our browsing history and what programs we're running.  Why?  To make money from direct advertising, of course.  Greedy.

Is this true? So if you don't want to upload feedback, you have no choice? I mean is that why you get server connection lost messages when you shouldn't be logged in or uploading feedback? Is there anyway to know what data you are sending exactly? Does it work even if the game isn't running?

[PhreedomX]

TacPlay wrote...

 

My sentiments exactly.

[neppakyo]

lol didnt see that comic, cause I didn't read the entire thread.

Pretty fun.. and sadly true.

[Tirigon]

PhreedomX wrote...

TacPlay wrote...

 

My sentiments exactly.

Haha epic indeed.....

[Kloreep]

WanderingIdler wrote...

Kloreep wrote...

So basically, you're suggesting it should be turned in to the traditional DRM scheme - a redundant one, given the EA DRM is also there. As others say, those systems traditionally don't stand up long. A system under which it could be bypassed, by any means, defeats the purpose of a "release date control."

No I'm not - first the online check would be optional

If the on-line check is optional, the check would have nothing to turn to except the user-controlled system clock. And the key would have to be packaged with the software somehow. Either aspect would weaken the Release Control's ability to control the release date. (The former, obviously, would kill it right off).

WanderingIdler wrote...

and secondly it would involve a connection to an NTP server of which there are thousands worldwide (see Wikipedia: Network Time Protocol for more info) rather than a single authorisation server.

Thanks for the link. Allowing the user to hit any of an approved list of servers does sound like a better method than relying on the Sony servers alone.

Thing is, keeping control of the key is still the most secure way to manage this kind of DRM. To make the DRM compatible with a third-party time server, you go back to the idea of including the key with the encrypted file(s) it unlocks. However well it's hidden, there's a chance it will be discovered before release. So I'm not really sure the reliance on specific Sony or EA servers could be worked around.

Rather than trying to give more options or lessen the chance of failure on release day - which I don't think you can without weakening the DRM scheme - better, I think, to try and provide workarounds as soon as possible. Which, with a staggered release schedule, is still going to be days but that would be better than nothing. Letting you enter the key manually, for instance, like you were suggesting. Bittorrent, or even just posting it on their website, would be a good back-up in that case.

WanderingIdler wrote...

Kloreep wrote...

It fell apart because the encryption scheme simply wasn't designed to cope with a traditionally staggered release, not because the encryption itself didn't work. Like I said in my previous posts: it succeeded in its job because its job was limited....

Which begs the question, why didn't Sony/EA make adequate provision for this? This has happened previously (notably with Valve's Steam) so it should be a no-brainer to provide extra capacity during the first few days of release. This cycle of failure suggests that saving money is a more important concern than supporting paying consumers.

I think you misinterpreted my post. So far as I know, there was no problem with server capacity. (But I don't think I unlocked the minute my timezone got the green light, so I wouldn't know.)

I was simply saying that a DRM scheme like this is extremely solid pre-release. Even if it eventually suffers the same weaknesses as other schemes after that.

WanderingIdler wrote...

(as well as stopping you from reselling it which is likely the main purpose of this DRM).

The problem here is that online activation is rather like smoking - the problems aren't visible up-front for most people (look at the number of "It's worked for me!" posts in this and related threads) but they are there and increase over time. The likelihood of Dragon Age 2 still being installable 10 years from now is greatly reduced by the use of online activation and if you care about game longevity (you should if you paid for it) this should be a serious consideration. Promises about future DRM-removal should be taken with extreme scepticism given EA/Bioware's past (i.e. non-existent) record on this, not least since doing so for a 5-10 year old game is going to be difficult and costly (see Shamus Young's Authorization Servers article for the reasons why).

Excellent points, I agree completely.

Modifié par Kloreep, 20 mars 2011 - 04:59 .

[Kkuros]

Well ... I have this to say.

Bioware. You LIED to us. Say what you will, but a Registry search for SecuROM on my computer brought up a positive. So, if it was Sony DADC and NOT SecuROM, shouldnt the registry say Sony DADC and NOT SecuROM?

I have VERY few games installed right now. I know none of the others have SecuROM. So ... what does that leave?

Yep! You guessed it! Bioware, YOU lied to us.

I found the files. The activation program says (Sony DADC), and another file (a dll) which clearly says (SecuROM).

So ... what am I supposed to think when all evidence on my computer says that SecuROM has been installed? Am I supposed to blindly believe you? Sorry, I'm not stupid.

I'm asking one thing right now.

WHEN IS A PATCH TO REMOVE SECUROM AND AN APOLOGY FOR LYING TO US ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF SECUROM FORTHCOMING?

[Kayden SiNafey]

This was not installed with the Steam Version. I just verified it. This is odd that Chris hasn't followed up on this to refute the evidence provided or at least say they are looking into if Sony put it in with out their consent.

Bioware you are getting WAY too much bad press with the release of Dragon age 2. There is the performance issues, locking out accounts, this DRM issue with physical media....why can't we get a straight answer out of you guys?!? You were so much better before you merged (or were you just acquired? *sarcasm*) with EA and now I am thinking more and more you aren't about the games anymore and this is extremely troubling but ME3 and TOR will decide this for me, but the short term out look is very bad if you only keep your mouths shut!

EDIT: Now Crytek isn't answering my questions about login problems with Crysis, Crysis Wars and Crysis 2 demo when it works in Borderlands and other games that support gamespy, in their own forum! I guess I wont be able to play Crysis 2 MP with my primary account, an account I have had since gamespys inception and it has all my contacts, bloody marvelous. I bring this up here cause their games are also being published by EA. Is this the new EA company modo for it's dev's "Have them buy the game with a lot of hype and then just stone wall them when they have legit problems! *greed face*"

EDIT AGAIN: Now EA is no longer giving us game manuals saying there going green. I call shenanigans because your only doing it to save money and not giving the customer a cut in that, we still have to pay the same price. *EAs greed face strikes again*

Modifié par Kayden SiNafey, 20 mars 2011 - 08:34 .