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

Most of the anti-DRM rhetoric fails becasue it is complaining before they actually have an issue. Like others, I bought the game, installed it, and have noticed a single issue with regards to being able to enjoy my game. We have it installed on both my iMac and MacBook.

If, down the road, my daughter comes to me with problems in regards to playing the game, I will deal with what I think is an appropriate course of action, including calling EA about the problem. As a customer with a problem, my complaint is 100 times more valid than an internet bully that wants to post over and over and over again how unhappy they are with DRM. If I find that two months down the road we no longer able to play the game, then I can see posting about this horrible DRM. Complaining because you anticipate problems means you are no longer a target customer for EA. They have decided they can make money without your business.

The title of this thread is ridiculous, to be honest. It only serves to undermine any valid points people are trying to make. EA is not getting out of the business, they are, like Stardock, focusing on people they can make money on. Their methods may be different, but their goal is the same.

Jayhawker wrote:

Most of the anti-DRM rhetoric fails becasue it is complaining before they actually have an issue. Like others, I bought the game, installed it, and have noticed a single issue with regards to being able to enjoy my game. We have it installed on both my iMac and MacBook.

If, down the road, my daughter comes to me with problems in regards to playing the game, I will deal with what I think is an appropriate course of action, including calling EA about the problem. As a customer with a problem, my complaint is 100 times more valid than an internet bully that wants to post over and over and over again how unhappy they are with DRM. If I find that two months down the road we no longer able to play the game, then I can see posting about this horrible DRM. Complaining because you anticipate problems means you are no longer a target customer for EA. They have decided they can make money without your business.

The title of this thread is ridiculous, to be honest. It only serves to undermine any valid points people are trying to make. EA is not getting out of the business, they are, like Stardock, focusing on people they can make money on. Their methods may be different, but their goal is the same.

The thread title came from a Reddit submission with the same headline, and I'll admit, is a bit silly. I changed it to reflect the actual contents of the thread better.

But I totally disagree with your declaration that DRM rhetoric fails.

If you walked into a store and a salesman said to you, "Oh, by the way, this product that you're buying today, it will break after 3 uses and you have to call us and convince us that you're telling the truth before we'll fix it. Oh, and there's a very good chance that it just won't work at all down the road, because it's too expensive to fix," would you buy that product? I don't think so.

The "rhetoric" is also not really rhetoric anymore, since Yahoo Music and MSN Music have both ended DRM authentication for their music stores. It happened to them, it can happen to us. Hell, Yahoo and MSN are arguably more reliable companies than EA, and even they decided DRM authentication servers were costing them too much. I'd say you're fooling yourself if you think EA won't shut down Spore's DRM authentication servers in the future, even if you haven't used your 3 installs by then.

Saying that you can't complain about a deliberate defect in a product because it hasn't affected you yet is a logical fallacy. That's like saying XBox 360 owners that haven't red-ringed yet have no right to complain or worry about their potentially defective purchase. If they didn't, Microsoft wouldn't have taken such a huge hit by extending the warranty for red rings.

Just got my pre-order of SPore in from Amazon. I am returning it with the comment to Amazon that it is due entirely because of EA's DRM scheme.

If I(or we hopefully) do not say stop at some point, then companies will just keep taking another inch, and then another, bit by bit, until we turn around and realize that they will eventually try to charge us the same way taxi's do. An actual meter charging us per second of play.

A line has to be drawn. This far, and not farther.

nsmike wrote:

But I totally disagree with your declaration that DRM rhetoric fails.

If you walked into a store and a salesman said to you, "Oh, by the way, this product that you're buying today, it will break after 3 uses and you have to call us and convince us that you're telling the truth before we'll fix it. Oh, and there's a very good chance that it just won't work at all down the road, because it's too expensive to fix," would you buy that product? I don't think so.

The reason the rhetoric fails is that statements like this do not reflect the reality most people observe. Thousands upon thousands of people will buy Spore, enjoy it, and then move on to another game without ever realizing there was DRM.

The "rhetoric" is also not really rhetoric anymore, since Yahoo Music and MSN Music have both ended DRM authentication for their music stores. It happened to them, it can happen to us. Hell, Yahoo and MSN are arguably more reliable companies than EA, and even they decided DRM authentication servers were costing them too much. I'd say you're fooling yourself if you think EA won't shut down Spore's DRM authentication servers in the future, even if you haven't used your 3 installs by then.

Well, the first point is that you don't understand the definition of rhetoric. It is just the process by which you make a point. It is not defined as good or bad itself. Rhetoric can be great, like MLK's "I Have a Dream", or it can be really poor. Your rhetoric fails because it is not achieving its goal.

Saying that you can't complain about a deliberate defect in a product because it hasn't affected you yet is a logical fallacy. That's like saying XBox 360 owners that haven't red-ringed yet have no right to complain or worry about their potentially defective purchase. If they didn't, Microsoft wouldn't have taken such a huge hit by extending the warranty for red rings.

But if everybody complains, it hides the real extent of the problem, which is why the anti-DRM crowd is trying so hard to build larger numbers than are actually affected to fill message boards and Amazon's review sites. If the vast majority of EA's customers are able to enjoy the game, then the numbers of people that dislike DRM really do not matter. The only purpose of the game is to enjoy it.

Microsoft did not respond because of people that didn't get red rings, they responded because of how many did. Since the number was so large, it had an impact on their sales.

You have to realize, I really despise EA, and would love to pile on. Their monopoly on NFL football games actually affects me. But their DRM, nor any other publisher of software or music, has had any effect on me. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've been able to enjoy these products as they were intended to be used. So I see most of the rhetoric about DRM as fairly empty.

Here is what surprises me about the defense of DRM.

Whether it is an issue or not, what DRM states is that the product you pay money for is not yours to use as you will. I understand software licenses very well as it's part of my daily business, but push your customers too far and you'll have a backlash. At some point in drawing up license agreements with clients and customers the provider of the software has the right to demand they get fair recompense but the customer also deserves fair use of the product. Neither party has the right to cheat the other.

Software piracy, regardless of reason, is wrong. Whether it is because "there wasn't a demo", "I lost my CD key", or whatever doesn't justify theft. I've lost CD keys as well but if there is not a demo my theft of the product essentially states "I am not willing to spend money on this product". The purest of intentions does not justify immoral actions. Now, if you needed Spore to live I might be more understanding. Anyway, my point is that I am not defending piracy in any way shape or form.

However, DRM does not stop piracy. The argument is that DRM stops casual piracy but that seems to be just moving the goalposts. People who have enough technical savvy to copy a CD or DVD won't find it any more difficult to get cracked copies. DRM is a huge inconvenience to customers and it is essentially the publishers saying either -

1. We don't trust you actually payed money for our game so now you have to prove it
2. You need to get our permission before using a product you've already payed money for

Incidentally, this goes contrary to most software which often have fully functional versions available for development or evaluation purposes but charge for actual usage. Again, we're not talking Oracle or WebLogic here, but I can only imagine the backlash it would generate if we asked companies with deep pockets to spend $20,000 up front for a product that was broken (and indeed, WebLogic 9.x is horribly buggy compared to its predecessor)

Perhaps because $50 is considered a paltry sum of money and individual consumers have less power than large corporations we think this is ok. I do not though. As has been pointed out by others, DRM on consoles is painless because it is turnkey and truly transparent to the consumer. Not only that, but a game runs on my console whether I can connect to the Internet or not. DRM on the PC's is about constructing roadblocks and apparently they're only set up on the major highways while pirates are cruising the back alleys where no one is looking.

Once I plop my money down I do believe I have a right to use the product and use it anyway I see fit so long as I am not trying to remove revenue from the publisher's pocket. I should be able to install it as many times as I want and I should be able to put it on any computer I want. So long as I am not running it concurrently on two or more systems it shouldn't matter but they also don't have the right to check. I don't want private companies monitoring me any more than I want the Federal Government to. There's nothing going on that is malevolent or criminal, but like my home what is on my PC is my business. When you install programs or insist that I connect to your servers to verify an actual running executable what you're saying is that they don't trust me enough to run their software but I have to trust them enough not to mess with my computer.

That seems unacceptable and we wouldn't put up with it from anyone else.

PyromanFO wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Ditto.

And as for the "put up or shut up" comments about those who complain and buy anyway, I'm not buying the game specifically due to the DRM. This is one of the few times that DRM is keeping me away from a game I'm genuinely interested in. I had to stop reading the catch-all thread because I don't need to know what I'm missing. :P

Unfortunately some of us bought the game before we realized this was the case. And honestly, I don't buy the argument that customers have no right to complain just because they have money in the game. If anything, it gives them more right to complain.

Myself, I think whether you've bought the product or not, as a customer or potential customer, you have every right to complain and object to questionable business decisions.

I was only making the point that EA has lost at least one sale of Spore specifically due to the DRM. No, I'm not going to go try to pirate it to spite them or something. I'll just play other games.

So here's a better question: EA has lost at least two sales of this game due to DRM (Fyedaddy's passing on it for the same reason). Can anyone say that they were specifically tipped towards purchasing the game due to the DRM?

The reason the rhetoric fails is that statements like this do not reflect the reality most people observe. Thousands upon thousands of people will buy Spore, enjoy it, and then move on to another game without ever realizing there was DRM.

There are many, many examples of things in history and day to day life that have poor implementations with bad consequences that most people won't observe. That doesn't mean they should be left alone. In addition, it's a reality they don't observe because EA obfuscates the truth of the situation. There is no salesman telling them this is what happens. Even if the customer knew that they'd move on from it before any of those problems arose, if they had been told this was the situation, I imagine they'd avoid a purchase.

Well, the first point is that you don't understand the definition of rhetoric.

I think I do. Although your usage may have had a different intention, context clues don't point to which definition you were referring to. "Rhetoric" can be a deceptive exaggeration, not just a means to a point.

Microsoft did not respond because of people that didn't get red rings, they responded because of how many did. Since the number was so large, it had an impact on their sales.

This was an imperfect analogy, I'll easily admit. Not just because of what you point out, but also because the XBox 360 was not designed deliberately to be defective. DRM is nothing more than a controlled, deliberate defect in a product (think the lysine deficiency from Jurassic Park). As long as the game hits the authentication servers, it gets to work. But if it doesn't get anything back, poof, the game is worthless. That your own situation and experience to date is unmarked by these problems is irrelevant.

And, I can point to another major DRM problem that affected a lot of folks, coincidentally with the XBox 360. Since so many red-rings were happening, Microsoft, in order to keep the turnaround as quick as possible (ha!) sent out refurbished replacements instead of fixing your box and sending it back to you. This made ALL DLC that you had on your hard drive unusable without internet verification (i.e., signing into XBL). This involved not only product that you had paid for, but a service as well. For a LONG time, there was no fix for this problem. Microsoft finally acquiesced to the demands for a fix and provided one. Customers may not see the DRM on something like Spore, but if they realized that it was essentially the same thing that would just take longer to go into effect, I'm sure they'd be upset.

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?

Me.
Xcom, Jagged Alliance 2 (THANKS GWJ FORUMS! - just when I though I got out...), HOMM3. Five computers on the first two, four on the other. And counting. If nsmike is correct, and hw changes require rekeying, I am probably close to 15 rekeys on Xcom in the last 10 years of gaming.

No sale.

I got plans, y'all.I hope to someday show my grandchildren how to conserve action points for opportunity fire, how satisfactory it is to headshot with hollowpoints and an MP5K, and the wisdom of ramping up to Titans as early as possible. I will want to play these games again in another 10 years.

What happens in 20 years - can I still get a key for the Mad Max machine that I cobbled together, and put on my microwave to alternating current power inverter?

I submit that all DRM will need to be cracked at some point in the products life. Even for those of us that have not larceny in our hearts. At some point some link in the chain breaks. New OS doesn't allow the DRM to install or validate, DRM codes are no longer available due to a decision or misfortune on the part of the publisher or developer, or Internet isn't DNS/IP based any longer. I suppose in the case of this game, if the online content is so important, the latter two points would break the game anyway. So maybe now I have two reasons not to buy Spore.

I support Stardock games proudly, because they are champions of their product and their consumers. Were I a developer, they would be my pub of choice. Color me fanboy green, I guess.

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.

Help me understand how it would be irresponsible.
Spore's DRM was cracked before it was released in NA.

Help me understand how a cost burden to both the company and the *paying* customers that does absolutely NOTHING to prevent the actual pirates is a responsible act?

Because of the good PR it generates on behalf of the shareholders?
Because of the lower costs involved?
Because of the increased sales to people who have vowed to only buy games with SecurROM?
Because of the reduced Customer Support costs involved with fewer people calling in with problems?
Because neither the C-level executives nor the shareholders can be trusted to understand a simple explanation of all of these things and must be maintained as though they were mushrooms in order to keep everyone happy?

Exactly which part is a responsible move?
I'm betting on the last one.

Farscry wrote:

So here's a better question: EA has lost at least two sales of this game due to DRM (Fyedaddy's passing on it for the same reason). Can anyone say that they were specifically tipped towards purchasing the game due to the DRM?

No, DRM does not encourage anyone to buy a product. But your attempt at a straw man argument fails, because DRM does prevent the casual swapping of games that occurs, which cuts into profits. EA is making a bet that DRM saves them more money than it costs them. It seems like some people want me to buy into the argument that DRM is bad even if it has not observable effects so that I will refuse to buy the product.

I don't have time to worry about business practices that do not affect me, and I find that much of the anti-DRM crowd to be disingenuous in their arguments. I know exactly what EA's motive is, and it is to make money. Producing software people cannot enjoy would not fit, so I am comfortable not worrying about the slippery slope arguments presented either.

because DRM does prevent the casual swapping of games that occurs, which cuts into profits.

So DRM means that Fair Use is invalid?

Also, that is never the official reason. DRM is always presented as a way to stop or reduce piracy. You can't claim a logical fallacy by using one yourself.

Whatever happened to the Right of First Sale?
Was that deemed invalid and I missed it?

No, DRM does not encourage anyone to buy a product. But your attempt at a straw man argument fails, because DRM does prevent the casual swapping of games that occurs, which cuts into profits.

This is as much of a fallacious claim as claiming that the anti-DRM crowd is making more noise than the number of folks that actually exist that are upset with DRM. Casual swapping can cut into profits, I suppose, but not on the level that direct piracy can, and preventing casual swapping is likely just stopping someone from playing the game that wouldn't have bought it in the first place. The allure of a free game that normally costs $50 that is easily swapped is enough to get someone to want it if they can have it, but not easily swapped likely just leaves someone who wasn't going to buy the game in the first place without it. It's not preventing any loss, and in fact, might prevent a purchase, since someone may actually decide the game is worth it upon trying the free swap, and go out and buy it, whereas being unable to try it, they just ignore something they weren't going to buy in the first place. And, despite the irrationality of it, will likely come away angry at the company for not allowing them to try it.

I don't have time to worry about business practices that do not affect me, and I find that much of the anti-DRM crowd to be disingenuous in their arguments.

So we go from a failed rhetoric to outright disingenuous? What is disingenuous about pointing out the faults of DRM? Are you implying that I'm only complaining because I want the game to be easier to pirate?

So everyone who runs these publishers and/or Developers is dumb?

Jayhawker wrote:

You have to realize, I really despise EA, and would love to pile on. Their monopoly on NFL football games actually affects me. But their DRM, nor any other publisher of software or music, has had any effect on me. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've been able to enjoy these products as they were intended to be used. So I see most of the rhetoric about DRM as fairly empty.

Okay, i'm going to be rhetorical here - because that's the only way to be in this situation - and i'm not trying to get into a political debate but i'm going to use political actions as an example as to why complaining before an actual event happens to you can be beneficial both to yourself and others.

The 'war on terror' has resulted in an errosion of public and personal privacy. Laws have been enacted that allow tapping of phones, incarceration of a suspect for an almost unlimited time without trial (and a fairly long time without accusation). Extradition laws have been strengthened and data collection on personal activities has increased on an international scale and has resulted in ridiculous ID card schemes that have been scientifically proven to be insecure not only in use but also in regards to theft.

Now, saying all that, i'm not some big anti-war protester though i see the problems inherent in the way things have gone. I (or you, Jayhawker) could be pulled off and placed in jail or another secure location upon a light suspicion of terrorist or terrorist-like activity for an unknown amount of time, our rights effectively revoked. By your logic, because that event has not happened and may not happen we have no right to complain about these measures put in place to protect 'us'. Do you think that's right? Does it make sense to you? It doesn't to me.

nukacola23 wrote:

So whether or not DRM is ethical is arguable, but really don't see DRM, especially SecuROM and online activation, being pivotal in terms of sales.

Did SOASE do great in sales because it was DRM free or because it was a great game? I somehow doubt the game would have sold a lot less if it had DRM, but that's just an guess.

You can't compare game sales as i tried to indicate in one of my long, boring posts (;)) earlier on in the thread. Apart from subjectivity on the part of the buyers there are multiple factors affecting a game's sales: marketing strategy, marketing allocation, market segment/target audience, sequelitis (i.e. it's a known entity in the market) etc.
Next you have to factor in that we are an extreme minority of gamers. We (and i'm making numbers up here) don't even account for 5% of all gamers in the market. Those 95% of gamers won't know about the DRM in releases (hell, i didn't know about the DRM in most of that list) and why would they unless the media report it? Some of those consumers won't even know what DRM is. We're just lucky that we visit 'hardcore' media outlets who will report a decent sensational story like any other news outlet to get pageviews because, let's face it, the publishers don't want to give information about DRM out because they know it will harm sales.

Nijhazer wrote:

If you feel that SecuROM is not the way to go, or even that DRM in general is not the way to go, then we can have a discussion about that; but I hope you guys have a better solution than "stop attempting to prevent piracy because it's inevitable".

I'm going to be even more controversial now and suggest something. *rubs hands in a totally non-evil way*. It's time for a thought experiment!

Now, let's take Spore as an example (because i've gleaned some information on it from this thread).

Timeline one:
1. Spore is made - it costs money A
2. Complex DRM is added - it costs money B1
3. Spore is leaked
4. DRM is cracked
5. Spore is released with DRM - it sells X
6. Spore gains customer/consumer dissatisfaction due to DRM losing Y sales.
(Hey, i don't know why it's always A,B,X and Y...)

Timeline two:
1. Spore is made - it costs money A
2. Spore has non-invasive (stable as opposed to say unstable versions of securom) DVD protection to stop simple copying - it costs money B2
3. Spore is leaked
4. Copy protection is cracked.
5. Spore is released - it sells X

All of the above are drawn from watching many releases of games worldwide over a few years and also the current Spore sequence of events. Now, the difference between those two are the added costs associated with DRM - B and the sales lost due to the DRM.

Now for the assumptions:

1. If we assume that people who pirate the game won't buy the game regardless of whether the game is cracked or not then we end up with the same number of pirates whether complex DRM is used or whether it's just a disc protection.

2. If we assume that casual copying is stopped in both cases then there is none of that going on.

3. Marketing and all consumer factors are equal excepting the DRM issue that we're bearing witness to.

4. Assuming that it costs more to implement complex DRM rather than a simple disc copy protection - including server maintenance and patches etc.

5. X will be equal in both timelines following points 1,2 and 3.

Summary of costs/sales:
B1>B2

Timeline 1 = -A -B1 +X -Y
Timeline 2 = -A -B2 +X

Therefore, in this simple thought experiment it could be said that having complex DRM is actually detrimental to both company and consumer since a product that is pirated before the street date has no protection from piracy since it only takes one pirate version to be released. You cannot predict if a product will be leaked before the release of a game or not and quite often DRM schemes can slow down and disrupt a user's experience (e.g. Titan Quest). I'd argue that there's little difference between having a game pirated a day before release or a day after it, though i'd need to see preorder to actual sales conversion on a timeline and i'm never likely to get anything like that

Now i will be missing some variables as this is very simple at best. X increases with time for example though Y will limit that rate of increase but i think it's an accurate description of the system in place. Timeline two doesn't stop attempting its combat of piracy, it just focuses on the place were the largest impact can be made and as a result increases revenue. I think that my assumptions are in not unreasonable... maybe someone can point out a flaw in my reasoning?

TheGameguru wrote:

So everyone who runs these publishers and/or Developers is dumb?

No, but as has been said - they need to appear to be doing something against a force that is completely out of their control. Stardock don't and so, do not.

They're stuck between a rock and a hard place because their investors don't want to believe that nothing or little can be done and consumers don't want to allow unfettered restrictions to appease investors.

Jayhawker wrote:
Farscry wrote:

So here's a better question: EA has lost at least two sales of this game due to DRM (Fyedaddy's passing on it for the same reason). Can anyone say that they were specifically tipped towards purchasing the game due to the DRM?

No, DRM does not encourage anyone to buy a product. But your attempt at a straw man argument fails, because DRM does prevent the casual swapping of games that occurs, which cuts into profits. EA is making a bet that DRM saves them more money than it costs them. It seems like some people want me to buy into the argument that DRM is bad even if it has not observable effects so that I will refuse to buy the product.

I don't have time to worry about business practices that do not affect me, and I find that much of the anti-DRM crowd to be disingenuous in their arguments. I know exactly what EA's motive is, and it is to make money. Producing software people cannot enjoy would not fit, so I am comfortable not worrying about the slippery slope arguments presented either.

One thing to note, I'm not opposed to DRM in general. I'm opposed to DRM that is intrusive. Having to call a customer service center, sit on hold for who knows how long, then plead my case to be granted the boon of reinstalling software I've already paid for? That's intrusive and a big inconvenience. And that's assuming they actually deign to allow me to install my software.

Having an initial online activation or the option to call in for an initial install activation (like Windows XP)? No problem there.

It's all in the implementation and policies. In the case of EA's new "limited installs" policy, the implementation is too objectionable for me to tolerate it of an entertainment product, crossing my line from "tolerable" into "no purchase". I don't need the game, I'd just really like it.

Dude, Jay, no need to keep saying "rhetoric" and telling people they aren't smart enough to debate you, bro - I'm near to rooting against Kansas in the NCAA Tournament next Spring, here.

duckilama wrote:

Whatever happened to the Right of First Sale?
Was that deemed invalid and I missed it?

I was going to ask the same thing. The last time I checked, EULAs still allow this (I haven't seen the Spore EULA). The DRM seems likes I complete contradiction of this right.

Edit: Does anyone know if music DRMs have ever been challenged in court?

There's another question I meant to put in my original post that I'll put here as well:

If publishers are convinced that the people screaming about DRM are a vocal minority and they want to be as transparent about their DRM practices as they claim, why does no one yet state clearly on the box what DRM they use? Why not allow us to be informed before making our purchase if they're so convinced it won't make a huge difference in sales? Many people who are ticked off are Spore's DRM didn't find out it was there until after they bought the game and couldn't return it. And I can guarantee you that the clerk at EB Games won't have a clue.

If they are convinced DRM isn't a big deal that isn't going to hurt sales, they need to put up or shut up. Tell me on the box that you use SecuROM with activation. If you don't and I don't find out until after I get home and open the box, then you either need to accept a return or accept that I and people like me will be pissed off about it.

Duoae wrote:

I think that my assumptions are in not unreasonable... maybe someone can point out a flaw in my reasoning?

I think you're assumption that the exact same level in both situations will occur is flawed. I personally know several people who regularly pirate games but purchased either Mass Effect, BioShock or in particular Valve games because dealing with the cracked versions was too much of a bother (who I would consider casual pirates).

Also, I really don't understand how people can actually claim that they are seriously concerned about not being able to play their games because of some highly implausible scenario in the future where the authentication servers go offline and no solution is available, when the other part of their argument is that all DRM gets cracked eventually. Seems to cancel that worst case scenario right out.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

If publishers are convinced that the people screaming about DRM are a vocal minority and they want to be as transparent about their DRM practices as they claim, why does no one yet state clearly on the box what DRM they use? Why not allow us to be informed before making our purchase if they're so convinced it won't make a huge difference in sales? Many people who are ticked off are Spore's DRM didn't find out it was there until after they bought the game and couldn't return it. And I can guarantee you that the clerk at EB Games won't have a clue.

I agree that would be a fair compromise, although naturally they want to be as vague as possible, since the more information the pirates have about how the DRM works, the easier it is for them. To be fair, though, my box of Spore states that an authentication process requiring an internet connection takes place in three separate places.

kuddles wrote:

Also, I really don't understand how people can actually claim that they are seriously concerned about not being able to play their games because of some highly implausible scenario in the future where the authentication servers go offline and no solution is available, when the other part of their argument is that all DRM gets cracked eventually. Seems to cancel that worst case scenario right out.

I don't see it that way. If the authentication servers were to go out, people who would not normally grab cracked software would be forced to, opening themselves up to having to deal with what could potentially be an even larger headache.

nsmike wrote:

I can easily reconcile that for you. It falls towards those of us who would rather legitimately play our paid-for games, and not have to deal with cracks, or compromise the legality of the situation just to play something we paid for.

You're seriously concerned about downloading a crack for a 10-year-old game from a company that is non-existent or refuses to sell or support it? I have strong doubts about that.

Also, I really don't understand how people can actually claim that they are seriously concerned about not being able to play their games because of some highly implausible scenario in the future where the authentication servers go offline and no solution is available, when the other part of their argument is that all DRM gets cracked eventually. Seems to cancel that worst case scenario right out.

I can easily reconcile that for you. It falls towards those of us who would rather legitimately play our paid-for games, and not have to deal with cracks, or compromise the legality of the situation just to play something we paid for.

I agree that would be a fair compromise, although naturally they want to be as vague as possible, since the more information the pirates have about how the DRM works, the easier it is for them.

This is a moot point, since saying "SecuROM" on the box doesn't really provide the pirates with any useful information they wouldn't find out in the first five minutes of trying to crack a game.

kuddles wrote:

Also, I really don't understand how people can actually claim that they are seriously concerned about not being able to play their games because of some highly implausible scenario in the future where the authentication servers go offline and no solution is available, when the other part of their argument is that all DRM gets cracked eventually. Seems to cancel that worst case scenario right out.

MSN Music and Yahoo Music went offline with no solution available. These are two large companies who could easily have kept the servers online to support their paying customers but instead left them hanging. This can easily happen in games with companies who are much smaller and have much greater interest in customers continuing to buy new products rather than hang on old ones.

kuddles wrote:
nsmike wrote:

I can easily reconcile that for you. It falls towards those of us who would rather legitimately play our paid-for games, and not have to deal with cracks, or compromise the legality of the situation just to play something we paid for.

You're seriously concerned about downloading a crack for a 10-year-old game from a company that is non-existent or refuses to sell or support it? I have strong doubts about that.

I think you're mistaken that it will be 10 years down the road. If they're still selling it, why should I have to buy it again? And if they're still selling it, it's likely that if they decided to turn off the DRM authentication servers, the support answer will be "go buy our non-DRMed version."

And it's not like I'm watching-out-for-the-cops concerned about getting a crack, it's just the principle of it.

Tkyl wrote:
duckilama wrote:

Whatever happened to the Right of First Sale?
Was that deemed invalid and I missed it?

I was going to ask the same thing. The last time I checked, EULAs still allow this (I haven't seen the Spore EULA). The DRM seems likes I complete contradiction of this right.

Edit: Does anyone know if music DRMs have ever been challenged in court?

Only the SONY rootkit debacle... not sure about anything else or if they're applicable since they aren't rootkits then there's a difference.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...

kuddles wrote:
Duoae wrote:

I think that my assumptions are in not unreasonable... maybe someone can point out a flaw in my reasoning?

I think you're assumption that the exact same level in both situations will occur is flawed. I personally know several people who regularly pirate games but purchased either Mass Effect, BioShock or in particular Valve games because dealing with the cracked versions was too much of a bother (who I would consider casual pirates).

When you say they're casual pirates do you mean that they CD crack one copy of the game on each of their respective PCs but have acquired a legitimate copy from a friend or somewhere else? Or that they download the games over torrent networks? If it's the second case did those three games have cracks available before release? I know Bioshock didn't but what about Mass effect? Valve games are more similar to MMOGs - they can be pirated but the effort to do so is exponentially difficult and so i would not compare these to retail releases.
As i said there are various factors and scenarios that aren't contained in that example i gave. I still don't think that an appreciable number of pirates are converted to paying customers if copy protection is sucessful for a short time after release.

Also, I really don't understand how people can actually claim that they are seriously concerned about not being able to play their games because of some highly implausible scenario in the future where the authentication servers go offline and no solution is available, when the other part of their argument is that all DRM gets cracked eventually. Seems to cancel that worst case scenario right out.

The problem is that the availability of a cracked game is similar to a retail purchase (digital download not included) i.e. that the availability after release diminishes due to lack of demand and production stock respectively. I reckon (and i haven't looked) that it's much harder to find a torrent seed of a game released in 2001 (with no sequel being expected soon) than it is to find a torrent seed of a 2008 or 2007 game.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

MSN Music and Yahoo Music went offline with no solution available. These are two large companies who could easily have kept the servers online to support their paying customers but instead left them hanging.

MSN Music servers aren't shutting down until 2011, and they haven't said that decision is final. Yahoo is offering replacement tracks or a complete refund. I fail to see how that's "left them hanging".

kuddles wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

MSN Music and Yahoo Music went offline with no solution available. These are two large companies who could easily have kept the servers online to support their paying customers but instead left them hanging.

MSN Music servers aren't shutting down until 2011, and they haven't said that decision is final. Yahoo is offering replacement tracks or a complete refund. I fail to see how that's "left them hanging".

Wasn't that only after hysterical outcries and media coverage of the events in question? Why should we have to wait for bad press before expecting a positive result?

Does any one have a link to the Spore EULA? I would really like to read it, but my googlfu doesn't seem to be strong. (Note: The Spore EULA, not the generic EA EULA)