EA Continues Draconian DRM Policies - General DRM Discussion (Thread Title Change)

Pages

Ars Technica reports.

This is coming on the tail of the huge customer dissatisfaction with Spore's DRM. This announcement is likely to give Red Alert 3 a head start on Amazon.

A discussion on this started in the Spore catch-all before Certis told us to stop and move to another thread.

Do you think PC game DRM's time has come to an end? Obviously EA doesn't think so, but only Activision/Blizzard is larger. Even the bigger publishers that are smaller than EA would have a hard time with this kind of backlash, I think. It could also mean an end to PC gaming, as more studios follow the way of Crytek.

But is it stupid to go against your customers? Or does the fact that consoles give them the means to avoid as much piracy as they deal with on the PC outweigh giving PC gaming customers what they want?

*sigh*
The whole DRM debate is really complicated. A publicly held company is essentially obligated to provide some for of protection otherwise shareholders will be drinking out of the executives skulls in recompense. Even though DRM is essentially futile.

But the new EA system seems to be the worst ever.

The Securom system used in Bioshock, where a proper uninstall essentially frees up another usage, makes more sense than having to phone in and beg to be able to install your game.

Edit: Oh wait. As pointed out in the comments on the story.

quote:
If you uninstall the game while connected to the Internet, the entitlement will be preserved and that install can be transferred to a different computer.

Problem solved.

DRM, it seems to me, is a complex issue that boils down to a simple question for the user:

How much inconvenience are you willing to put up with in order to obtain the item that is under the control of the DRM.

It seems to me that people are willing to put up with what might be thought of in the abstract as draconian controls as long as they don't get in the way.

People are certainly happy enough to buy songs from iTunes for example, even though the DRM there is only slightly different than what EA is offering. The small differences matter.

Same with games on Steam. Games on steam are essentially controlled with an online activation sort of DRM, but people are willing to use the system because of the other services that it provides.

So no, I don't think this is going away. I think that inconvenience-for-service equation is going to be adjusted until w come to a grudging compromise.

FWIW, I had no problems with the Spore DRM. A friend of mine still can't play online because of it though. Not surprisingly, he cares a lot more about the DRM than I do.

But if your hard drive fails, then you're just out of luck on that install. For someone like me who's installed even Red Alert 2 probably 9 or 10 times across a few computers (two of which were rebuilt when hard drives failed...) this is just plain sh*tty.

I want the game. In fact, I really want the game, but I'm seriously considering just giving it a complete pass.

Either that or I'll buy it and then download some hacks to rip the DRM right the hell out of it. One way it's a lost sale for EA, the other it's a major hassle for me. Neither is really a win on EA's part.

It sucks. Period.

Urk, guess not.

easmudge wrote:

Quick update. As many conversations as I’ve had about this, it turns out I got an important detail wrong so I need to clarify something important.

An uninstall does not return the entitlement to the user. I’ll be updating my original post to reflect this.

Only five unique machines can be licensed with the same installation code. So you will be limited to a total of five machine activations.

However, we will ensure that nobody gets left in the lurch. Our customer service organization is committed to granting additional authorizations on a case- by-case basis for those folks who have good reason to need additional installs.

I am really sorry about the confusion, guys. I asked several people about this and thought I had it down, but obviously didn't. Totally my bad.

I've not verified this in any way, but I've also heard hardware configuration changes invalidate a license. Something as simple as deciding you need a new video card, or even simpler, throwing in a stick of RAM, or replacing a defective one, could cause you to lose one of your licenses.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

*sigh*
The whole DRM debate is really complicated. A publicly held company is essentially obligated to provide some for of protection otherwise shareholders will be drinking out of the executives skulls in recompense. Even though DRM is essentially futile.

The whole DRM debate is very simple. Do you enjoy groveling at EA's feet for the privilege of playing their games? Then buy them. Otherwise, insist on being treated like a human being and don't buy their games until the DRM is removed. A publically held company is obligated to do their best to provide profits for their shareholders. If gamers refuse to buy games with DRM like this, then the obligation to their shareholders will be to remove the DRM. EA isn't stupid. They'll fix it so they can make money again. Or they'll get out of the PC games business, which is fine because other companies will take their place. The market is worth billions, there's no shortage of companies that will take advantage of it correctly.

We're junkies, and no matter how abusive the dealer gets, he's got the stuff, man.

This policy, by the way, isn't about piracy, and it never was. This is about destroying the used game market.

Aetius wrote:

The whole DRM debate is very simple. Do you enjoy groveling at EA's feet for the privilege of playing their games? Then buy them. Otherwise, insist on being treated like a human being and don't buy their games until the DRM is removed. A publically held company is obligated to do their best to provide profits for their shareholders. If gamers refuse to buy games with DRM like this, then the obligation to their shareholders will be to remove the DRM. EA isn't stupid. They'll fix it so they can make money again. Or they'll get out of the PC games business, which is fine because other companies will take their place. The market is worth billions, there's no shortage of companies that will take advantage of it correctly.

Yes, I won't buy them. My friend won't buy them. But all the kiddies that flock to my store every week asking for the new Sims 2 addon will nag their parents until they buy it. And even if all of EA's customers are limited to grovelers, ignorant and just plain unconcerned, well that's just fine. There are millions of them out there.

Malor wrote:

We're junkies, and no matter how abusive the dealer gets, he's got the stuff, man.

This policy, by the way, isn't about piracy, and it never was. This is about destroying the used game market.

There's a used PC game market? I thought its been dead for years.

sheared wrote:

There's a used PC game market? I thought its been dead for years.

I would agree, even Gamestop got out of that one, and they're usually willing to fleece anyone for their cash.

The used PC games market is not viable anymore because PC games drop in price so much faster than console games, and those who don't want to buy pirate anyway.

ea wrote:

Our customer service organization is committed to granting additional authorizations on a case- by-case basis for those folks who have good reason to need additional installs.

Awesome! My good reason will be "I bought the game". I can't think of any other product that you can buy, then need to contact the seller to make a case for why you should still be allowed to use it in the future.

Slacker1913 wrote:

Yes, I won't buy them. My friend won't buy them. But all the kiddies that flock to my store every week asking for the new Sims 2 addon will nag their parents until they buy it. And even if all of EA's customers are limited to grovelers, ignorant and just plain unconcerned, well that's just fine. There are millions of them out there.

Which brings us back to demonstrations like the Amazon reviews. The word needs to get out, and that's a good way to do it. Lots of people buy on Amazon. Kiddies have parents, and parents are usually adverse to wasting their money.

If not demonstrations like this one, how can people get the word out to the masses that they are being taken for a ride in a van with a creepy guy?

nsmike wrote:

The used PC games market is not viable anymore because PC games drop in price so much faster than console games, and those who don't want to buy pirate anyway.

I always thought it had more to do with serials. I'd never buy a used PC game because I never knew if the serial were linked to a specific account or something.

Personally, I don't buy the idea that DRM is about killing the used game market.

Well, it's obviously not working to stop piracy, so....

What I don't get is, particularly with Spore ... why have copy protection at all? The game's not very good without the online component, and you can't log in without a valid license key anyway. If someone wants to steal the fairly barren solo experience, let them -- better that than inconvenience your paying customers.

This is a reason why I really like Stardock: they don't focus on pirates, they focus on paying customers. They correctly realize that if someone steals their game, they probably didn't lose anything. Instead, they try hard to keep the people who DO pay for content happy. They're small, but seem to do pretty well.

This is a great topic, but what does it have to do with the title (of the thread)?

Spore is actually the first PC game I can recall that I have installed with absolutely zero hassle. It actually worked out of the box, no patching required, no trouble with the internet... that is, until I hit a game-breaking bug in the first mission of the space phase and could not progress any further. I wasn't aware of any DRM issues - didn't bother me this time.

I do get why they use DRM. They have to. Anything that might slow down the initial wave of piracy, either pre-launch or during launch, is just necessary to get those all-important week one sales. However, things like install limits I just can't begin to understand. These have never hurt a pirate and the times when I've come across those (Windows activation, I'm looking at you) as a legitimate customer have been just excruciating. It's crap you're very stupid forcing your customer to go through.

They're selling wares that have a hefty price, with very high barriers to entry because of all the technical hurdles and very easily obtainable pirated versions online - zero wait, zero cost, minimum hassle. And then they decide it's a good idea to piss off their customers and see if they'd like to take some more?

It wasn't long ago when Moore said that EA is going to concentrate on offering extra value to the customers, not punishing them for buying the game. I don't know how that fits into this picture.

Am I the only one who really doesn't have a problem with DRM unless it has some negative effect on my machine? They have to protect their IP, and really, how often do you uninstall a game or put i on a 5 unique machines?

Fedaykin98 wrote:

This is a great topic, but what does it have to do with the title (of the thread)?

Just meant to imply that EA is shooting themselves in the foot and possibly condemning themselves to poor sales.

jlaasko wrote:

Anything that might slow down the initial wave of piracy, either pre-launch or during launch, is just necessary to get those all-important week one sales.

This DRM did nothing of the sort, either. The game was leaked, cracked, and seeded on torrent sites BEFORE the street date. It now serves no purpose other than to annoy those customers who paid for it.

I am enjoying Spore a lot. It is a relatively rare pc purchase for me now that i spend most gaming time on the 360. That being said, I wont be buying any more EA PC games though because of the DRM.

It just takes away from the sense of 'investment' in the game purchase. That feeling of "I got it" is reduced to "I have access to it, for now." Almost every game purchase is pure loss (well outside of the hours of entertainment etc), but the knowledge that I can reinstall it after having it in my gaming 'vault' or uninstalling it to make room for other software at least gives the purchase legs.

I dont regret my purchase of Spore as I just love seeing how creative my kids are with it. But the DRM didnt need to be so invasive. When the DRM overshadows the software itself, there is a problem. I can easily see many people running into the 3 install limit over time.

Ulairi wrote:

Am I the only one who really doesn't have a problem with DRM unless it has some negative effect on my machine? They have to protect their IP, and really, how often do you uninstall a game or put i on a 5 unique machines?

I uninstall games that I haven't played for a couple months. I try to keep at least 30% free space on my HD to keep its speed optimal.

Ulairi wrote:

Am I the only one who really doesn't have a problem with DRM unless it has some negative effect on my machine? They have to protect their IP, and really, how often do you uninstall a game or put i on a 5 unique machines?

No you are not the only one. I honestly do not give a sh*t. It would be irresponsible for any company to not include DRM.

nsmike wrote:

This DRM did nothing of the sort, either. The game was leaked, cracked, and seeded on torrent sites BEFORE the street date.

Just because it did not stop it does not mean that they did not slow it down.
If the DRM pays for itself and prevents as much money going out the back door that it costs it is wise in the eyes of its investors.

My real frustration is all the people who are complaining staging Amazon review protests etc. are still playing the freaking game.

Put up or shut up and vote with your wallet not with an abuse of a review system.

EvilDead wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Am I the only one who really doesn't have a problem with DRM unless it has some negative effect on my machine? They have to protect their IP, and really, how often do you uninstall a game or put i on a 5 unique machines?

I uninstall games that I haven't played for a couple months. I try to keep at least 30% free space on my HD to keep its speed optimal.

Unique machines is the key part.
From what I understand (and I could be wrong) you can install and uninstall as many times as you like on the same machine.

WiredAsylum wrote:
nsmike wrote:

This DRM did nothing of the sort, either. The game was leaked, cracked, and seeded on torrent sites BEFORE the street date.

Just because it did not stop it does not mean that they did not slow it down.
If the DRM pays for itself and prevents as much money going out the back door that it costs it is wise in the eyes of its investors.

Spore was out on torrent sites a week before the US release (think it was a leaked Australian retail copy, if I recall correctly). The DRM did exactly zero in this case. I'm not saying it doesn't slow things down, but it didn't do that at all here.

WiredAsylum wrote:

No you are not the only one. I honestly do not give a sh*t. It would irresponsible for any company to not include DRM.

How is it irresponsible? Everyone points to Sins of a Solar Empire as an example. Low-budget, no DRM, and profitable. By EA's, and apparently your, measure, Sins should be a dreadful failure and a magnet for piracy.

WiredAsylum wrote:

Just because it did not stop it does not mean that they did not slow it down.
If the DRM pays for itself and prevents as much money going out the back door that it brings in it is wise in the eyes of its investors.

I'm not sure how you figure that having the game pirated before they can even make a dollar on selling the game legally means that the DRM paid for itself in any way. DRM costs more than a licensing fee to SecuROM. They have to staff people to develop and maintain the software, and pay for authentication servers. The overhead on authentication servers has been high enough that places like Yahoo Music and MSN Music have decided it's not worth it. The three install limit leads me to believe that EA has a planned obsolescence strategy for Spore and subsequent titles, which gives them a measurable point to say, "Well, most folks have probably used up their three installs by now, so we don't need these servers anymore." DRM may have no immediate implications for you, but that's part of what makes it so insidious. EA has a knife at the throat of your copy of the game, and can slice it wide open at any time.

WiredAsylum wrote:

My real frustration is all the people who are complaining staging Amazon review protests etc. are still playing the freaking game.

Put up or shut up and vote with your wallet not with an abuse of a review system.

Not sure where you're getting evidence that these protesters are specifically playing the game. You can review products you don't own on Amazon.

nsmike wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:

No you are not the only one. I honestly do not give a sh*t. It would irresponsible for any company to not include DRM.

How is it irresponsible? Everyone points to Sins of a Solar Empire as an example. Low-budget, no DRM, and profitable. By EA's, and apparently your, measure, Sins should be a dreadful failure and a magnet for piracy.

Show me where I said, or even implied that without DRM a game is a failure. As a shareholder of ERTS, Spore is MY investment and if EA took no action to protect MY investment that is irresponsible.

What stardock does is up to them if their game sells and is profitable and they have zero piracy then great. I am not a shareholder in Stardock nor would I be.

Well after reading that bit on Ars, RA3 just went from "Will reserve a collectors edition" to "Pass."

Spore I already passed on due to onerous DRM. I'm a paying customer, I don't pirate, and yet, I'm being treated like a criminal? I don't get nor enjoy this.

Dear EA/all publishers: Get on the Steam bandwagon. Non-invasive DRM for the win.

WiredAsylum wrote:

Show me where I said, or even implied that without DRM a game is a failure. As a shareholder of ERTS, Spore is MY investment and if EA took no action to protect MY investment that is irresponsible.

What stardock does is up to them if their game sells and is profitable and they have zero piracy then great. I am not a shareholder in Stardock nor would I be.

Well, claiming it is irresponsible is definitely an implication that the game could fail, sales-wise. Your reluctance to be a shareholder in Stardock (if they were public, I don't think they are, but I'm not 100% sure) shows that you don't think it's a good business decision.

EA is taking no action to protect your investment from poor sales due to an extremely unpopular choice of DRM. Especially when more elegant, customer friendly, and hell, even popular DRM solutions like Steam exist, why should you not be upset as an investor?

nsmike wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:

Show me where I said, or even implied that without DRM a game is a failure. As a shareholder of ERTS, Spore is MY investment and if EA took no action to protect MY investment that is irresponsible.

What stardock does is up to them if their game sells and is profitable and they have zero piracy then great. I am not a shareholder in Stardock nor would I be.

Well, claiming it is irresponsible is definitely an implication that the game could fail, sales-wise. Your reluctance to be a shareholder in Stardock (if they were public, I don't think they are, but I'm not 100% sure) shows that you don't think it's a good business decision.

EA is taking no action to protect your investment from poor sales due to an extremely unpopular choice of DRM. Especially when more elegant, customer friendly, and hell, even popular DRM solutions like Steam exist, why should you not be upset as an investor?

As an investor I am upset by that, but that is a separate issue. The issue we are discussing is DRM.

My reluctance to invest in Stardock (I do not think they are public either) would be not that their games are not going to be profitable but that they could be even more profitable. If I was not clear on that I apologize I can see where you got that from my statements now.

Now I do not think EA choice in DRM is a wise one based on the consumer’s reaction but to imply that they should employ no form of protection would be irresponsible.

That is the point that I have up to this point poorly conveyed.

It boils down to crappy DRM implementations being... crappy. You can surely come up with DRM which works better than this, like Steam does.
Having a X times intall limit or placing malware on peoples computers is just a bad idea in every possible way.
It shouldnt be so hard to figure out, but apparently it is, and I surely support the people throwing out 1-star reviews on Amazon for that reason.
Sure, you might vote with your wallet too (Ive done so far) but thats hardly enough, You dont get the point through by not buying the game. Contrary, EA will just give a press release later stating they only sold X copies and 1 billion was pirated, or something.

Ok, well, now that we've cleared that up, I'm still confused by your idea that some form of "protection" is necessary or even effective. As I said, the game was cracked and available to pirates a week before the street date. Obviously the protection did nothing to prevent the largest loss of profit for them, piracy. What is actually being prevented here is the user's ability to install the game on more than one PC he owns (let's face it, no one is going to buy 2 copies of Spore for their desktop and laptop, or similar reasons), install it after a hardware failure, uninstall it and install it again later for the sake of hard drive space/optimized performance, a hardware change or upgrade, or buying a new system. The only thing it's doing is preventing the people who actually paid for it from exercising a reasonable expectation of rights for something they paid for. Everything I just mentioned loses NO money for EA. The only situation that DRM may help prevent is what gaming companies call "casual piracy," where folks share the game. And in such cases, the vast majority of the time, it's not a lost sale, because the person you are probably sharing with wouldn't have bought the game in the first place.

Pages