Electronic Arts' DRM Outrage

thelordofcheese

sinbad269 wrote: »

Yes that's what I was getting at, but then I'd have to deal with the original topic, its a catch 22, but I'm prepared to deal with the amount of annoyance, than have to deal with a useless game after about a year [that's how long it would take to use all 5 licenses]

They should probably adopt the variant on the same idea that UbiSoft did with FarCry 2 whereby they refund each install when you uninstall it.

making it pretty hard to use them all and somehow render the game 'useless'.

Then again, i'm crazy like that.....

sinbad269

thelordofcheese wrote: »

They should probably adopt the variant on the same idea that UbiSoft did with FarCry 2 whereby they refund each install when you uninstall it.

making it pretty hard to use them all and somehow render the game 'useless'.

Then again, i'm crazy like that.....

lol, yes thats a good idea, that or just have the install limit scrapped altogether

thelordofcheese

To be fair if you need it installed on more than 3 machines concurrently then there is something wrong with you and you should seek professional help.

And as DRM systems go, an activation limit is pretty light, and does what it sets out to do. Systems like this aren't ever going away, so i'd like to see them implemented in the least dickish manner possible.

sinbad269

thelordofcheese wrote: »

To be fair if you need it installed on more than 3 machines concurrently then there is something wrong with you and you should seek professional help.

And as DRM systems go, an activation limit is pretty light, and does what it sets out to do. Systems like this aren't ever going away, so i'd like to see them implemented in the least dickish manner possible.

I spose, but does it work like iTunes Activation limit where you deactivate a computer unless your on that computer? Cos it would suck if your Windows broke, and you had to reinstall, therefore using 1 of the activations, and losing it forever [like my iTunes account - when I first got it, I accidentily Authorised my account to the same PC twice, and then Windows crashed using up both]

thelordofcheese

sinbad269 wrote: »

I spose, but does it work like iTunes Activation limit where you deactivate a computer unless your on that computer? Cos it would suck if your Windows broke, and you had to reinstall, therefore using 1 of the activations, and losing it forever [like my iTunes account - when I first got it, I accidentily Authorised my account to the same PC twice, and then Windows crashed using up both]

According to UbiSoft upgrades (which include OS upgrades) are catered for by using a revoke. Not sure *how* they implement that, but that's what they claim.

sinbad269

thelordofcheese wrote: »

According to UbiSoft upgrades (which include OS upgrades) are catered for by using a revoke. Not sure *how* they implement that, but that's what they claim.

well, then yes, that's probably the best way to go.

ALL HAIL UBISOFT!!! :P

cherryghost

dont really mean to disgust anyone in any way here:

"Good for you for buying PC games in the first place. But, you are in a tiny minority. 9 in 10 PC games are pirated. That’s a conservative industry estimate based on the number of patch downloads for a typical PC game vs. actual sales.

This has been going on for many years, and is the single reason PC gaming is being strangled. Developers are moving to consoles, which is a comparatively safer environment to ward off piracy.

PC developers have, over the years, tried various means to stop their work being stolen, and they have done so with care not to overly inconvenience legit customers, but at every step those measures have been defeated, forcing publishers to either:

A: Implement more effective anti-theft mechanisms, or

B: Bite the bullet and switch to console or face collapse.

Not because they want to inconvenience gamers, or because they are “greedy” but because it is the only way the company – and its team of hard working, passionate and creative staff – can avoid going under.

How would *you* feel if you spent 3 years working on something, your heart and soul poured into it, your house triple mortgaged to pay for it – then within a day of it being released (and remember how excited you have the right to feel on that day) – you watch as the torrent sites show that 1 million copies have been downloaded, but retail receipts show only 100,000 have been sold? Then 2 weeks later the company folds because it can never recover costs, 100 good people are out of work – while also trying to get over the punch in the guts depression of having given everything for nothing, and the only jobs on offer are for console developers.

Meanwhile, the ****ers that stole the game are on your site’s forums abusing you for daring to “stifle freedom” by trying to protect your game in the first place – and demanding a patch.

Screw you, thieving bastards that are destroying the thing I love most."

Some Ben Mansill fella was saying this, cant remember the site though... will edit if I do. But seriously guys, think about what you're doing. I used to pirate games, now I buy all of them. I know DRM has gotten everyone in an outrage, but people think its an excuse to go download it instead. Why dont you buy it, then download it as a backup?? Its not that hard to do.

Again, I know that you shouldnt really be doing this, and even if EA's DRM thing does come an epic failure, other methods will arise to stop piracy, and more than likely fail.

So do yourself a favour, and buy the damn games please.

r3nu4l

cherryghost wrote: »

its been pointed out to me that the wispa revival stemmed from an online petition

The 'Bring back Wispa' campaign was a very clever covert marketing campaign carried out by Cadbury's. It wasn't people power at all.

1) Marketing chiefs wondered if there was any life in the old dog left.
2) Did some quiet market research to gauge opinion on bringing back Wispa. Decided a pre-launch campaign was needed.
3) Generated 'independent' online petition and championed it through viral marketing (shill accounts on internet forums and social networking sites)
4) Critical mass is reached and nostalgia takes over, online petition shows lots of support
5) Marketing chiefs meet to discuss success of campaign and potential sales of product
6) Press releases sent to news agencies to show that Cadbury's are 'surprised' but delighted that customers waged a campaign to bring Wispa back and will respond soon
7) Wispa re-launched and Cadbury's look like the good guys
8) ???
9) Profit

Ciaran500

cherryghost wrote: »

PC developers have, over the years, tried various means to stop their work being stolen, and they have done so with care not to overly inconvenience legit customers, but at every step those measures have been defeated, forcing publishers to either:

A: Implement more effective anti-theft mechanisms, or

B: Bite the bullet and switch to console or face collapse.

C: Go with no copy protection and let people who would buy the game just get on with it.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/10/07/world-of-goo-devs-on-drm-we-trust-you-dont-steal-from-us
http://www.gamershell.com/news_46073.html & http://www.gamershell.com/news_46678.html
http://forums.galciv2.com/104297 & http://forums.galciv2.com/329116 Galactic Civilizations II has sold over 300,000 copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling PC turn-based strategy games of all time

Azza

PC developers are not switching to consoles. They are switching to multi-platform development as are the console developers (and by that I mean developers who use to be format exclusive). I'm not aware of any PC game developer thats abondoned the PC format altogether.

The primary reason for this is the ever increasing cost of making a video gaming. Microsoft and Sony have both stated in public that the era of console exclusive games is by and large at an end simply because games are too expensive to keep to one format. There will be exceptions but there will be far less exclusive games than in the previous console generation.

If game developers found it difficult to make money by releasing a title on a single console than its pretty obvious that PC developers would be under greater pressure as PC games sales have always been lower than console sale.

No game developer regardless of format preference can ignore the fact that multi-platform games will make more money, so say even if PC piracy was totally eradicated and PC sales shot up to match or even surpass console sales as a result (which it would not in my opinon) you would still see most titles go muti-platform anyway. Thats why most AAA titles still come to the PC even though it still makes less money than the console versions. It does not make sense not to release games on the PC as any additionaly profit is still welcome even if its only 10%.

Piracy is a factor. Its rampant on the PC format and no one claims otherwise but its actually affect on sales is unknown. While I'm certain there is lost revenue due to piracy we don't know the true extent of it. One can assume anywhere between 0% to 100% of pirated games is lost revenue but the fact is no one really knows. The PC Gaming Alliance has stated it will release figures on the actually revenue lost from piracy some time next year.

MOH

cherryghost wrote: »

dont really mean to disgust anyone in any way here:

"Good for you for buying PC games in the first place. But, you are in a tiny minority. 9 in 10 PC games are pirated. That’s a conservative industry estimate based on the number of patch downloads for a typical PC game vs. actual sales.

That's a bit of a rubbish way of estimating piracy. It counts someone who bought the game second hand as a pirate. It counts someone who reinstalls the game and downloads the patch again as a pirate. It counts someone who gets a loan of the game from somebody who has played and uninstalled it as a pirate.

How would *you* feel if you spent 3 years working on something, your heart and soul poured into it, your house triple mortgaged to pay for it – then within a day of it being released (and remember how excited you have the right to feel on that day) – you watch as the torrent sites show that 1 million copies have been downloaded, but retail receipts show only 100,000 have been sold? Then 2 weeks later the company folds because it can never recover costs, 100 good people are out of work – while also trying to get over the punch in the guts depression of having given everything for nothing, and the only jobs on offer are for console developers.

I doubt most games developers have their house triple mortgaged in favour of the game they're currently working on, and the rest of it is utter bilge too.

Meanwhile, the ****ers that stole the game are on your site’s forums abusing you for daring to “stifle freedom” by trying to protect your game in the first place – and demanding a patch.

Screw you, thieving bastards that are destroying the thing I love most."

Eh, no, the people abusing you on the forum are the legitimate customers who bought your game and can't play it because of the DRM you put on it, and are so fed up at this stage that even if your company wasn't going bust in two weeks, wouldn't be buying anything else from you anyway.

Some Ben Mansill fella was saying this, cant remember the site though... will edit if I do. But seriously guys, think about what you're doing. I used to pirate games, now I buy all of them. I know DRM has gotten everyone in an outrage, but people think its an excuse to go download it instead. Why dont you buy it, then download it as a backup?? Its not that hard to do.
Again, I know that you shouldnt really be doing this, and even if EA's DRM thing does come an epic failure, other methods will arise to stop piracy, and more than likely fail.

If you buy it and download it it's going to be counted as a pirated copy anyway.
I've spent a small fortune on games over the years, I've never even thought about piracy. Until I had problems with Securom. And then every major title started shipping with this rubbish. Sure, maybe 90% of people don't have problems. But you never know.

If publishers are prepared to install invasive software on my machine without telling me, then good luck to them, they're not getting my money.

I've a new idea I'm going to try out:
- I'm not spending another cent on any game with any form of Securom protection on it, or anything equally invasive. Disk verification is fine, as long as it doesn't involve Securom.
- I'm telling the relevant company exactly why I'm not buying their game
- If I want to play the game, I'll play it anyway: borrow it off someone else, or whatever
- Everything I save on not buying the DRM-infected stuff, I'm going to spend on other games which I wouldn't normally buy, but which are DRM free. Something like 'Sins of a Solar Empire', which I mightn't even play, but they'll get my money to help prove that DRM-free publishing works. Or small developers selling stuff themselves online. Or maybe something off GOG Games that I never got around to trying out.
- If they release a DRM-free version of a game I've boycotted (but played), then I'll buy that too.

So I'll be spending at least as much on games as I do now. My money will be going to companies that don't treat their customers as criminals. In general, it will probably be going to smaller dev groups, or individuals, who need the money more anyway, and helping keep them in the business. And I might just play a few hidden gems I wouldn't have considered before.

Everyone wins, except those who continue abusing their customers.

cherryghost

MOH wrote: »

I've a new idea I'm going to try out:
- I'm not spending another cent on any game with any form of Securom protection on it, or anything equally invasive. Disk verification is fine, as long as it doesn't involve Securom.
- I'm telling the relevant company exactly why I'm not buying their game
- If I want to play the game, I'll play it anyway: borrow it off someone else, or whatever
- Everything I save on not buying the DRM-infected stuff, I'm going to spend on other games which I wouldn't normally buy, but which are DRM free. Something like 'Sins of a Solar Empire', which I mightn't even play, but they'll get my money to help prove that DRM-free publishing works. Or small developers selling stuff themselves online. Or maybe something off GOG Games that I never got around to trying out.
- If they release a DRM-free version of a game I've boycotted (but played), then I'll buy that too.

So I'll be spending at least as much on games as I do now. My money will be going to companies that don't treat their customers as criminals. In general, it will probably be going to smaller dev groups, or individuals, who need the money more anyway, and helping keep them in the business. And I might just play a few hidden gems I wouldn't have considered before.

Everyone wins, except those who continue abusing their customers.

It's an idea but it wont work. You're one person, that wont change their view, as long as the rest buy a copy and they are still making a profit.

OK fair enough. Suppose now that I re-read through it, some of it is nonsense. Some points he made are valid though in my opinion. But things wont change. Only a mass consumer protest involving thousands (hundreds of thousands) refusing to buy the games would just get the companies thinking. But it wont happen.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/04/peter-moore-explains-ea-sports-pc-snub/

Just remembered this, EA Sports are withdrawing some of their titles for the PC format. Piracy is the number one reason. Of course it would be the number one reason for many companies to withdraw, but as it has been pointed out, many titles still make a reasonable profit on the games, despite DRM arguements and piracy and all that.

MOH

No, obviously they're not going to give a damn about one person, but at least I'll get something out of it and some other people will get an extra sale, so it works for me. Unfortunately, it's hardly going to inspire a mass revolution. Actually, if I can get myself organised enough, I think it would be nice in my e-mail to let each company know which game they're 'sponsoring', e.g. Telling UbiSoft that I very much enjoyed FarCry 2, after borrowing it from a friend, but I won't be buying it because of the DRM, but they'll be glad to know I'm spending the money on Sins of a Solar Empire instead.

Excellent thread here on piracy from one of the Sins developers. There's some interesting comments, including one going further from the OP, pointing out that piracy of PC applications is rife, but no-one is talking about pulling out of the PC application market or slapping crazy DRM on them (OS devs aside).

thelordofcheese

Ciaran500 wrote: »

C: Go with no copy protection and let people who would buy the game just get on with it.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/10/07/world-of-goo-devs-on-drm-we-trust-you-dont-steal-from-us
http://www.gamershell.com/news_46073.html & http://www.gamershell.com/news_46678.html
http://forums.galciv2.com/104297 & http://forums.galciv2.com/329116 Galactic Civilizations II has sold over 300,000 copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling PC turn-based strategy games of all time

No.

That only works if your game is niche enough to appeal to the kind of people who don't think piracy is acceptable and if your company is small enough to be classed as "the little guy" and it didn't cost several million to develop.

Stardock and 2D Boy fit that bill perfectly. If EA, Blizzard or Ubi tried that they'd find their games pirated even more because every idiot with a net connection would justify it to themselves with "It's ok to steal from big corporations, they have plenty of money" and it'd be even easier than it is now.

wayne040576

thelordofcheese wrote: »

No.

That only works if your game is niche enough to appeal to the kind of people who don't think piracy is acceptable and if your company is small enough to be classed as "the little guy" and it didn't cost several million to develop.

Stardock and 2D Boy fit that bill perfectly. If EA, Blizzard or Ubi tried that they'd find their games pirated even more because every idiot with a net connection would justify it to themselves with "It's ok to steal from big corporations, they have plenty of money" and it'd be even easier than it is now.

The stardock games (Sins and GC) were pirated in big numbers as well. They were even bragging about it on forums because it had no copy protection to get around.

thelordofcheese

wayne040576 wrote: »

The stardock games (Sins and GC) were pirated in big numbers as well. They were even bragging about it on forums because it had no copy protection to get around.

Yes, but (and this is the important part) Sins is a fantastic game, but it's in a genre that is so hoplessly under represented that anyone who likes the genre and ISN'T a total dick will buy it to support the developer.
It's a feel good thing. They're a small developer so people feel they're helping the little guy in a world where genric shooter 42: the shooter-ning is dominating everything.
And the 'No DRM' angle is more of the same, it makes people feel that they're 'making a stand' against DRM.


The same won't apply to bigger games due to market saturation. FarCry 2 (to use a recent example) is a fine game, but FPS games are released at roughly the rate of several billion a second. There isn't the same 'feel good' factor of supporting the developer in that scenario because

a] They're a big publisher and therefore a big evil corporation being all evil and corporation-y
b] We're up to our dicks in FPS games, we don't feel we need to support the genre becuase it's COMING OUT OF THE GODDAMN WALLS.


The 'no drm' approach only works on certain games, it's not a viable solution to piracy. It's just a marketing ploy for niche games.

DirkVoodoo

Has anyone got Red Alert 3 yet, speaking of EA dicking people over?

No LAN play for the co-op single player missions, so basically if like me you have 2 PCs and enjoy playing the odd game with your brother and being able to have a laugh/argue about it after, you must fork out the bones of €100 for two copies.

Measures like this and DRM are what push people to piracy. I would have no qualms about doing this to EA after this fairly direspectful spit in the face to their customers.

MooseJam

There's no DRM on music CD's and music piracy is far far worse , it's all bs excuses

thelordofcheese

MooseJam wrote: »

There's no DRM on music CD's and music piracy is far far worse , it's all bs excuses

That has more to do with the limitations of the compact disk format (which can't have DRM software and be standards compliant)and compatability issues between CD-ROM media disks and CD players than anything else.

Digital music is by far a better comparison than music disks from a DRM point of view.

MOH

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The same won't apply to bigger games due to market saturation. FarCry 2 (to use a recent example) is a fine game, but FPS games are released at roughly the rate of several billion a second. There isn't the same 'feel good' factor of supporting the developer in that scenario because

a] They're a big publisher and therefore a big evil corporation being all evil and corporation-y
b] We're up to our dicks in FPS games, we don't feel we need to support the genre becuase it's COMING OUT OF THE GODDAMN WALLS.


The 'no drm' approach only works on certain games, it's not a viable solution to piracy. It's just a marketing ploy for niche games.

I don't think people who pay for a game with no copy protection are doing it to support the genre. There's a lot of 4X games out there, many of them rubbish, many of them with some form of copy protection. They're paying for Sins because it's good, and they're supporting the development of a good game. Which is well supported, another reason to pay for it.


Personally, FarCry2 is one of the most enjoyable FPSs I've played in ages.
And I don't really consider Ubisoft a big evil corporation churning out generic rehashes (unlike, e.g. Electric Aardvarks). I genuinely think it's a game worth paying for. The only reason I'm not is Securom. If it turns up on GOG in a few years time with no DRM, it's top of my list. Except Ubisoft then get from me a fraction of what they would now if I bought it new.


I do agree with you that there's an element of 'supporting the guys taking a stand against DRM', but I don't see why that should be limited to small publishers - if Ubisoft announced tomorrow they were re-releasing their library without Securom or *shudder* Starforce, they'd get a similar positive reaction.

thelordofcheese

MOH wrote: »

I don't think people who pay for a game with no copy protection are doing it to support the genre. There's a lot of 4X games out there, many of them rubbish, many of them with some form of copy protection. They're paying for Sins because it's good, and they're supporting the development of a good game. Which is well supported, another reason to pay for it.

Sins is a great game, only a fool would say otherwise, but i think it's sales can somewhat attributed to it having no compeditors. And games like Sins aren't exactly frequent anyway. I know part of the reason i paid for it was "i want to see more games like this"

MOH wrote: »

I do agree with you that there's an element of 'supporting the guys taking a stand against DRM', but I don't see why that should be limited to small publishers - if Ubisoft announced tomorrow they were re-releasing their library without Securom or *shudder* Starforce, they'd get a similar positive reaction.

Yeah, i'm sure they'd get a nice big cheer from the internet. Unfortunatly, it's the same internet that has either just bought the game already or stolen it.
Frankly they have no reason to strip DRM out, they know that people are going to try and steal their games so they have no reason to make it easier to do by removing DRM.

The goal of DRM has never really been to eliminate piracy, but to make it so that piracy is not the easy option. If you really think you have some god given right to have a copy of something you didn't pay for then you'll probably jump through as many hoops as you have to.
If you're the average net user and you can't torrent a copy and get it to run with minimal effort due to DRM then it's done it's job.

Nick_oliveri

I posted this link on another thread.
I had a load written up for this thread but it didnt make much sense.
http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Piracy_PC_Gaming

MooseJam

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The goal of DRM has never really been to eliminate piracy, but to make it so that piracy is not the easy option.

Well if thats it's goal it has been a total failure, piracy is the easy option, it takes just three clicks of my mouse to get the latest game, a superior version of the one they are selling for 50 notes, and with high speed broadband it will be downloaded before I could have gone to a shop to buy it. As someone mentioned elsewhere they should develop games for people who will buy them and not worry about piracy, just take it as a given, get over it , move on, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

thelordofcheese

MooseJam wrote: »

Well if thats it's goal it has been a total failure, piracy is the easy option, it takes just three clicks of my mouse to get the latest game, a superior version of the one they are selling for 50 notes, and with high speed broadband it will be downloaded before I could have gone to a shop to buy it. As someone mentioned elsewhere they should develop games for people who will buy them and not worry about piracy, just take it as a given, get over it , move on, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

It hasn't suceeded yet.

And that "just develop it for people who'll buy it" is rubbish, pure bullshit of the highest order.

You've already told us how easy it is to steal a copy of a game, what makes you think that people when presented with two options, one where they part with 50quid and one where they don't and they get the exact same thing, will actually choose to part with money?
People chose the path that will reward them the most for the least effort, that's human nature. We all want something for nothing.

Advocating a removal of methods to stop people from stealing is like staying "shoplifting happens, they shouldn't bother having CCTV or store dectives, they should just sell to the people who will pay, and not worry about it"
where you're doing business in a town full of kleptomaniacs.

Ciaran500

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Frankly they have no reason to strip DRM out, they know that people are going to try and steal their games so they have no reason to make it easier to do by removing DRM.

The goal of DRM has never really been to eliminate piracy, but to make it so that piracy is not the easy option. If you really think you have some god given right to have a copy of something you didn't pay for then you'll probably jump through as many hoops as you have to.
If you're the average net user and you can't torrent a copy and get it to run with minimal effort due to DRM then it's done it's job.

There is absolutely no effort in stealing any PC game at all and other than Starforce (for a short while) there never has been a DRM that has achieved that goal. All it has achieved is making legitimate versions of the game harder to play.

MooseJam

thelordofcheese wrote: »

It hasn't suceeded yet.

And that "just develop it for people who'll buy it" is rubbish, pure bullshit of the highest order.

You've already told us how easy it is to steal a copy of a game, what makes you think that people when presented with two options, one where they part with 50quid and one where they don't and they get the exact same thing, will actually choose to part with money?
People chose the path that will reward them the most for the least effort, that's human nature. We all want something for nothing.

Advocating a removal of methods to stop people from stealing is like staying "shoplifting happens, they shouldn't bother having CCTV or store dectives, they should just sell to the people who will pay, and not worry about it"
where you're doing business in a town full of kleptomaniacs.

OK you seem to think there is just you and then everybody else who will steal, strangely enough there are many people with your views, some who think it's the honest way to go about things, some who want the product in their hands etc, yes piracy is the easy option and guess what - OMG shock horror but games actually sell - by the hundreds of thousands, some by the millions, right now piracy is as big as it's going to get - most people in the developed world have broadband, it's not going to get much bigger - and the games development industry is fine, people are still buying !, but these people have just got a bee in their bonnet, granted I'm sure I'd be as annoyed as the next person if it was my stuff being freely traded but I think I'd get over it.
You mentioned CCTV and store detectives but these are both unobtrusive and don't degrade the shopping experience, if I was to compare DRM with highstreet anti-theft measures I'd say something along the lines of strip-searches in Tesco would be more apt.

thelordofcheese

MooseJam wrote: »

OK you seem to think there is just you and then everybody else who will steal, strangely enough there are many people with your views, some who think it's the honest way to go about things, some who want the product in their hands etc, yes piracy is the easy option and guess what - OMG shock horror but games actually sell - by the hundreds of thousands, some by the millions, right now piracy is as big as it's going to get - most people in the developed world have broadband, it's not going to get much bigger - and the games development industry is fine, people are still buying !, but these people have just got a bee in their bonnet, granted I'm sure I'd be as annoyed as the next person if it was my stuff being freely traded but I think I'd get over it.

I think it's no coincidence that what is keeping the games industry ticking over (and where the majority of the money is to be made) is on consoles, which are far harder to pirate stuff.

Which goes back to the goal of DRM, to make piracy harder for the average user to achieve.

MooseJam wrote: »

You mentioned CCTV and store detectives but these are both unobtrusive and don't degrade the shopping experience, if I was to compare DRM with highstreet anti-theft measures I'd say something along the lines of strip-searches in Tesco would be more apt.

If by apt you mean outrageous hyperbole, then yes, it is an apt comparison.

sinbad269

I noticed somebody saying something about RA3, and its "incapability" to play over LAN. It is capable, but [like you said] you need two separate copies to be able to play in Co-Op. I'm sure this means the Keys need to be valid and unique to each-other. The valid part, cos it probably connects to the GameSpy Network, and checks against a WhiteList, and the unique part so they don't experience conflict and to make sure there isn't piracy goin on - which is understandable.

On the note of RA3, I've decided to boycott EA with the greatest Strategy Series ever made - I grew up on CnC so you can see where I'm coming from - with pirating RA3. A guy in a net cafe today asked me about RA3 saying that his copy just doesnt like his key at all [RA3 keeps asking for it even after installation], and I continued on to say that I've a pirated copy, with no such troubles, but I've heard reports of the same problem.
Not only this, but the whole debacle about the mis-printed Serials, and the Install Limit applied, along with a load of other small bugs implemented to try stop piraters. Examples would be like the game slowly degrading until you can't move your units around, or the menu screens taking up to 30 seconds to load, or after mission 5, the game just crashes.
All said elements that are implemented to try stop pirating have been eliminated. In such a way that the game is as if I bought it, but without the DRM or Serial issues.

EA can't possibly solve that Serial issue [that I know of, if anyone has experienced it and EA HAVE solved it for them, then please say so], unless they turn to the very people they are trying to stop - the piraters.
The serial issues I'm on about is the game asking for it every time its opened, and doesnt go forward until it says its good

thelordofcheese

sinbad269 wrote: »

On the note of RA3, I've decided to boycott EA with the greatest Strategy Series ever made - I grew up on CnC so you can see where I'm coming from - with pirating RA3.

Boycott doesn't mean what you think it means.

MOH

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The goal of DRM has never really been to eliminate piracy, but to make it so that piracy is not the easy option. If you really think you have some god given right to have a copy of something you didn't pay for then you'll probably jump through as many hoops as you have to.
If you're the average net user and you can't torrent a copy and get it to run with minimal effort due to DRM then it's done it's job.

Well, it's not doing a good job of it.

If publishers think they have some god given right to install stuff on my PC without my permission, which is going to trash my dvd drive, meaning that I can't play the game I bought legally from them, or any other game I legally bought that needs a disk in the drive (and also prevents me using a virtual drive to get around that), and have to go to the expense of replacing my drive, then I'll jump through whatever hoops I have to to avoid the risk of this happening again.

Of course, if you're the average net user you mightn't have heard much about DRM, and might not associate your drive failure with that. But the more negative publicity it gets, the more people are going to know about associated problems, and the more people are going to either download a DRM free version, or throw their hands up and move to console.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Boycott doesn't mean what you think it means.

Boycott - a group's refusal to have commercial dealings with some organization in protest against its policies