A New, Unpopular Philosophy

Stop me when you’ve heard this before: Gamers are up in arms over the copy protection scheme of a major publisher.

The tumult from the latest skirmish between warring gamers and publishers involves Spore, which limits the number of installs permitted to 3 before the user must contact EA to extend their license. Immediately gamers lined up their rhetorical catapults and fired salvo after salvo of familiar, flaming linguistic ballistics, rolling out all the hits: treating customers like criminals, it doesn’t do anything against piracy, boycott EA and so on.

Call it apathy. Call it selling out. Call it whatever you want, but try as I might, I simply can not find any enthusiasm for bubbling up my once white-hot animus. It’s not just that I don’t necessarily see anything extraordinarily troubling about EA’s security measures; it’s also that I just can’t muster the same gamer-rage that once seemed to come so easily. Feeling victimized by every perceived slight just isn't as appealing to me as it used to be.

Let me stress that I don’t fault those who experience trouble with restrictive DRM for speaking up. I just wonder how many of the people expressing outrage saw fire on the horizon and went running toward it with lighter fluid?

I appreciate the basic sentiment of gamers, misguided as I think it may be. But, when I think about my personal experience with recent anti-piracy efforts, I find it hard to recall it actually causing me any trouble. Oh, it’s not hard to imagine circumstances under which I could be inconvenienced, but when I measure that against the instances in which it actually happened, I come up blank.

I can count on one hand the number of games I’ve actually installed more than three times. So, if I look at how the Spore issue relates to me practically, then I am forced to concede that the likelihood of my having to ever extend my installations is extraordinarily small. And, should I ever have to make that call, I wonder how difficult a process that really is? I once had to do something similar for Windows. The process was painless and lasted a few minutes. So, I ask myself: is this a price I’m willing to pay if EA’s investors feel like the company is making meaningful anti-piracy efforts and by extension is willing to greenlight even more high-budget PC titles?

The more I release myself from the chains of hysterical hypotheticals, the more I find myself not really having a problem with it.

And, I think about the options that EA and other major publishers have. Piracy is a problem that companies can’t choose not to address. Arguments over the number of lost sales any degree of piracy represent or the effectiveness of anti-piracy efforts aren’t really the point. The real issue is that the company would be criminally negligent if it didn't make measurable efforts to protect the multi-million dollar investment they have in Spore.

You’re absolutely right; those who stand the largest likelihood of being inconvenienced are the legitimate consumers — saying nothing of how often that will actually happen or how difficult a problem that is to fix. Just once, though, I wouldn’t mind seeing the hivemind of gamer rage aimed at the people who actually put us in this position, the pirates. How likely that is to happen, I don't know. I suspect that most publishers have lost a good deal of faith on that question, which is perhaps why the PC has become such a diminished platform. Again, I think I’ll choose to not get worked up about things that are beyond my control.

It's not that I’m not trying to flip the blame on the self-labeled victims. I don’t believe that approach is any more productive than bombing EA with negative Amazon.com reviews. Those who want to get in a schoolyard brawl with the publishing giant are welcome to their dirty fights. Maybe they’ll even get the company to back down on Spore, winning a minor skirmish in the losing war against the inevitable. The problem is that gamers don't have much of a track record on the 'being practical about the realities of business' front. Beside the fact that our ability to participate in the industry debate has been completely dilluted as a result of our tacit approval of piracy, there are very few demonstrable instances where concessions to gamers haven't just resulted in further outrage. We aren't known for meeting in the middle.

So, I’m going to reserve what dry fumes of gamer rage I have left for problems that, for me, are actual rather than hypothetical. I’ll save my victimization for when Spore of Mass Effect actually leave me with no access to the content I paid for rather than suffering the many imagined ways such a thing might happen. I suspect that by the time the installation limitation is likely to be an issue, I will have no shortage of options on the table for either extending my license or circumventing EA’s anti-piracy measures.

These days I’m willing to spend hours re-installing my favorite old games. I’ll waste time scouring the internet for updated texture packs, old patches and homemade mods. If my time and $60 is so precious that I can’t accept that corporations have legal obligations to shareholders and a necessary interest in making efforts to limit the theft of their property, then I am comfortable with my choices of supporting different companies or finding a new past time.

That's the whole point. I have a choice. I can either wash myself in the venomous bath of voluntary outrage for a problem I will likely never have, or I can accept that the circumstances of the industry simply do not permit a major publisher the luxury of being lackadaisical with their investment. I can make the industry the villain for trying to protect its property, or I can make the thieves the villain for massive excesses and creating the combative climate. I can be furious about the vague problems of some unknown number of people, or I can realize that for me I will likely buy Spore, install it and play it without incident.

For me, the choice isn’t particularly complicated. It may make me a patsy, a sellout or an apologist. Fair enough, I can’t control those labels, but I can control the fact that while thousands of outraged gamers have signed petitions, fired off angry emails, posted furiously on message boards and drowned Spore with negative reviews, I was having a fun and hassle free experience playing the actual game.

In the immortal words of Miracle Max, “have fun stormin’ da castle.”

Comments

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Does it mention anything about an Internet connection and activation being required? A few people here have said that it does mention that, though without the 3 install limit.

Internet connection, online authentication and End User License Agreement Required to play. To access online features, you must register online with the enclosed serial code. Only one registration available per game. EA Terms & Conditions and feature updates can be found at www.ea.com. You must be 13+ to register online. EA may retire online features after 30 days notice on www.ea.com.

That's all it says on the back. I've even read through the instruction manual and found no information regarding the installation limit.

I did a search on the official Spore website and finally found it:

QUESTION
How will Digital Rights Management (DRM) work with Spore and Spore Creature Creator?

The DRM solution implemented for the Spore and Spore Creature Creator changes copy protection from being key-disc based, which requires authentication every time you play the game by requiring a disc in the drive, to a one-time online authentication. This system has the added benefit of allowing you to seamlessly play your game without requiring the game disc in the drive.

KEY POINTS:

* This system allows you to authenticate your game on three computers with the purchase of one disc. EA Customer Service is on hand to supply any additional authorizations that are warranted. This will be done on a case-by-case basis by contacting Customer Support.
* Games are authorized to your machine when you first install and launch the game.
* We’ve all had those times when the discs get lost or scratched, and you can’t play a game you’ve bought because you need a working disc in the drive. With this new system, players will no longer need the disc to play the game, but can instead simply retain the disc as backup for reinstallation.

FAQ:

Q: What is the difference between the old PC disc authentication solution and the new online model?
A: Two things have changed:

* First, authentication of your game disc has changed from a physical format to an online format, eliminating the need to have a disc in the drive when playing.
* Second, with online authentication, consumers now connect to the Internet the first time the game is launched and are only required to reconnect if they are downloading new game content.

Q: How will the game authenticate now?
A: We authenticate your game online when you install and launch it for the first time.

Q: Do I have to reauthenticate after the first time my game is launched?
A: Reauthentication is required only if you make significant changes to your PC's hardware, reformat your hard drive, or in some cases, upgrade your Operating System. Multiple installations of the game on the same computer do not count against the number of computers the game can be installed on.

Q: What are the benefits of online authentication versus the disc-based model?
A: The new system means you don't need to have the game disc in your computer in order to play. Losing a disc will no longer keep you from enjoying a game you already have installed.

Q: Am I able to play my game on more than one computer? Do I need the disc for that?
A: You'll be able to install and play your game on up to three computers without the need of the game disc. Your computer is authorized after installation and the initial launch of the game.

Q: Will I still be able to play my game offline?
A: Yes, you can play offline, however, we do hope that you will play online. Sharing creatures, buildings, and vehicles with other players is something that is unique to Spore and Spore Creature Creator, and is one of the coolest features of the game.

Q: What happens when I’ve reached the maximum number of computers for my game and I need more? (Due to computer upgrades, theft, crashes, etc.)
A: EA Customer Support is on hand to supply any additional authorizations that are warranted. This will be done on a case-by-case basis by contacting Customer Support.

Q: Why are Maxis and EA implementing this new authentication process?
A: This solution serves to protect our software from piracy. It has the added benefit of allowing you to activate your game on multiple machines without needing the game disc in the drive when playing the game.

You would think some of this info would be important enough to put on the damn box.

Mystic Violet wrote:

You would think some of this info would be important enough to put on the damn box.

Admit it, you just want the old full size boxes back.

Me too ...

bnpederson wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

-Three install limit? Be honest, how many casual families have more than one computer? How many of them reinstall regularly? As a tech, I am surprised by how many machines I come across still running Windows 98. With XP being significantly more solid as an OS, I think the casual crowd will be running the same install for a few years more.

I speak only from my knowledge of friends who primarily focus on the Sims 2 (and now World of Warcraft to a lesser extent) but in many instances they game on laptops that get destroyed, lost, or have to have complete hard drive meltdowns fairly often. One of my friends is on her fifth laptop in the last few years due to various accidents and hardware errors, and each of those has Sims 2 installed on it.

Now Spore might have a different audience, certainly being installed on a family's desktop computer in the living room, even with kids, is less prone to failure than a the laptop of a woman in her late twenties, but I don't think the casual crowd will gloss over the problem if Spore proves to be as popular as EA wants, or if EA sticks with this on other flagship PC titles.

That is an interesting point. Laptop sales are definitely skyrocketing, and reliability will likely always remain an issue.

I do still think we're talking about a significant minority however. Taking care of their once per year-ish issue with the DRM will be a customer service problem.

2 points:

1) I don't have a problem with the 3 installs. You can always call and ask for more.

2) EA's draconian measures didn't work no matter how many figures they will want to throw at you. The fact is that the game was leaked and readily available on torrents day 1 of the Australian release. So US pirates were playing Spore 5 days prior to legitimate US customers.

Leave it to my father to come up with the simplest and best explanation about the whole EA DRM issue:

You buy a book and read about have way through. Suddenly you realize you need new reading glasses, so you go and buy them. When you crack the book open again, suddenly the book says it won't let you read it because you're not in the same condition as you were when you bought the book in the first place, thus thinking that someone else was trying to read it. Now, ask yourself, is that fair?

It's all the MMOs' fault.

People playing MMOs don't buy games anymore.

To introduce matters of fact, rather than opinion and speculation:

Last night Serious Sam II would not run on my machine. The error message was something along the lines of, "Cannot find your original disk", which was in the drive. This, of course, gave no clue as to what the actual problem was.
So I went google-hunting for solutions, and ran across this tidbit: SECUROM will refuse to run your game if Microsoft SysInternals Process Explorer is running or has been loaded since startup.

Sure enough, I had Process Explorer running. After a reboot (without starting Process Explorer), it worked fine. SECUROM's stance on this is that they did it deliberately, as hackers could use the Process Explorer drivers to trace and figure out the actions of SECUROM (thus giving them a way to break it).

This is not the first time this has happened to me. Several other games have also refused to run, in each case because SECUROM doesn't like my system management tool.

So, at least one person has been inconvenienced by SECUROM's invasive DRM.

Hans

Rat Boy wrote:

Leave it to my father to come up with the simplest and best explanation about the whole EA DRM issue:

You buy a book and read about half way through. Suddenly you realize you need new reading glasses, so you go and buy them. When you crack the book open again, suddenly the book says it won't let you read it because you're not in the same condition as you were when you bought the book in the first place, thus thinking that someone else was trying to read it. Now, ask yourself, is that fair?

Yup. That's a simple and to the point explanation alright. Nice.

hidannik wrote:

To introduce matters of fact, rather than opinion and speculation:

Last night Serious Sam II would not run on my machine. The error message was something along the lines of, "Cannot find your original disk", which was in the drive. This, of course, gave no clue as to what the actual problem was.
So I went google-hunting for solutions, and ran across this tidbit: SECUROM will refuse to run your game if Microsoft SysInternals Process Explorer is running or has been loaded since startup.

Sure enough, I had Process Explorer running. After a reboot (without starting Process Explorer), it worked fine. SECUROM's stance on this is that they did it deliberately, as hackers could use the Process Explorer drivers to trace and figure out the actions of SECUROM (thus giving them a way to break it).

This is not the first time this has happened to me. Several other games have also refused to run, in each case because SECUROM doesn't like my system management tool.

So, at least one person has been inconvenienced by SECUROM's invasive DRM.

Hans

Yes, this is a point I had forgotten about, DRM's aggressive stance on how you should be using your machine, or what programs you can have installed or running. This is worse than the three installs, in my opinion.

I am outraged sir!! Outraged, I say.....

Oh wait... I'm not buying Spore... nevermind.

Rat Boy wrote:

Leave it to my father to come up with the simplest and best explanation about the whole EA DRM issue:

You buy a book and read about have way through. Suddenly you realize you need new reading glasses, so you go and buy them. When you crack the book open again, suddenly the book says it won't let you read it because you're not in the same condition as you were when you bought the book in the first place, thus thinking that someone else was trying to read it. Now, ask yourself, is that fair?

That's perfect, on this DRM issue, I think that EA is wrong and I really hope this backfires on them because this is unfair to all of us especially because it treats us like criminals, I am not fully against DRM, but DRM like this I am against which causes alot more problems than it's worth

I will not be buying Spore until they fix this.

Rat Boy wrote:

Leave it to my father to come up with the simplest and best explanation about the whole EA DRM issue:

You buy a book and read about have way through. Suddenly you realize you need new reading glasses, so you go and buy them. When you crack the book open again, suddenly the book says it won't let you read it because you're not in the same condition as you were when you bought the book in the first place, thus thinking that someone else was trying to read it. Now, ask yourself, is that fair?

Does your dad also claim that the publisher has to send him a new book if a page gets ripped out?

Why are we pretending that digital media is just like physical media?

Forbes had an article about this yesterday:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...

LilCodger wrote:

Eventually, the masses will turn on many forms of DRM (see the RIAA). Until that day, temper your arguments with the knowledge that if you're here and reading this, you are a tiny minority of the expected consumer base. Vote with your dollars (and I support you in that decision), but bear in mind that you might as well vote Libertarian this November as well.

I will also be voting Libertarian this November. You know why? Because if I don't, I honestly can't expect anyone else to.
Same with voting with my dollars. If I cave, after spouting so much righteous indignation, then who else is going to stand their ground? It's a little thing called having the courage of your convictions.

And yeah, maybe I am just jumping on the bandwagon, because Spore isn't a game I would have otherwise cared about. But if you see a flag others are rallying towards, on an issue you strongly oppose, you go where the battles are fought.

People should never give a game a negative review unless the game itself deserves it.

Going to Amazon, I feel bad for the little (or really big) guy.

I see no reason to feel bad for EA. The fact is that gamers are pissed about the DRM—this is no surprise to anyone since gamers are always pissed at something. But they are. They don’t like the DRM so they should be able to express that. Sure they can just not buy the game, many will do this. But then the publisher can say it’s a development issue—that the game wasn’t fun enough for enough people. By affecting Spore’s sales through Amazon’s feedback system gamers can actually have their vice heard.

I disagree with the opinion that it’s immature or pointless for gamers to make their opinions known on conceptual issues. So they may never be impacted by the DRM issue. They then aren’t allowed to state that it seems like a horrible way to set the system? It doesn’t mean that gamers are right, but it does suggest that publishers can’t just ignore the voice of gamers moving forward.

Daouzin wrote:

People should never give a game a negative review unless the game itself deserves it.

Going to Amazon, I feel bad for the little (or really big) guy.

If the product misrepresents itself and/or has significant downsides then that should be in any consumer review. Customer reviews are for a product as a whole, not for the game beneath everything else. I want to know if a plate set was packaged such that the edges were often chipped, irrespective of how pretty the pattern is. Why should a game be any different?

Mystic Violet wrote:

Internet connection, online authentication and End User License Agreement Required to play. To access online features, you must register online with the enclosed serial code. Only one registration available per game. EA Terms & Conditions and feature updates can be found at www.ea.com. You must be 13+ to register online. EA may retire online features after 30 days notice on www.ea.com.

This 30 days notice is the only guarantee of service I've seen, and it's not a very good one. Where is the guarantee that EA won't stop activations next year? Or, for that matter, tomorrow? Ah, there isn't one. I've seen several people hypothesize that EA will probably remove the DRM in a year or so; while that is very nice sounding it'd be much more convincing in writing ... from EA.

Anyway, for now, Spore's terms and associated DRM seem neither tolerable nor, unfortunately, negotiable, and I will vote with my dollar and pass on this game. It's not much, but at least I'd like to think I have not sunken so far into middle-age mediocrity or apathy as to not applaud others who choose to do more to express their frustration or outrage.

Elysium wrote:

But there are already workarounds? Is it really unreasonable not to be worried about having easy access to some kind of work around in the future?

By taking the stance that 'pirates have already cracked the DRM, so what's the big deal' you seem to be having your cake (the DRM doesn't bother me) and eating it too (I can crack it if needed).

Doesn't that seem a little bit hypocritical?

Rat Boy wrote:

Now, ask yourself, is that fair?

Life's not fair. Quoth Scar...

"Life's not fair, is it? You see, I... well, I shall never be king. And you... shall never see the light of another day. Adieu. "

This game is PUBLISHED by EA. Sure Electronic Arts seems evil for wanting to ensure people actually buy their game instead of just downloading it, but who you're really hurting with negative reviews and boycotting is Will Wright who is a creative mastermind and legitimate game creator.

So I agree with the issue of piracy protection? No, it's a waste of money. People who want to steal the game will do it one way or another, whether it's from the comfort of their home or at the store, they DO NOT plan on buying the game, so forget them. I'm curious to see just how easy it is to get more installs, because if it can indeed be installed and registered on different machines then couldn't you call up and get say 10 more codes for your buddies?

I can respect a company for trying their best to avoid piracy, but everyone should face it... the people who don't want to pay will find a way around it and the tougher it is to crack, the more people who come out to rise to the challenge. I think these dollars spent trying to figure out a way around piracy could be better spent enhancing the game. Also, I haven't heard a bad experience from any users of Steam content... could someone be doing something right? I think so.

This game is PUBLISHED by EA. Sure Electronic Arts seems evil for wanting to ensure people actually buy their game instead of just downloading it, but who you're really hurting with negative reviews and boycotting is Will Wright who is a creative mastermind and legitimate game creator.

I think Will should be able to understand that the animosity is directed at EA. All this means is that it's likely he'll find another publisher for his future products. Hopefully. That would be a huge win, considering what his franchises have done for EA of late.

Frankly, I think the "hypothetical hystericals" are winding down. People are, in fact, starting to vote with their wallets. I expect that soon there will be more action, and even less hysterics. We're done talking. The game distributors didn't listen. It's pretty clear from the Amazon reviews and comments that many, many people did not buy Spore because of the DRM - I would estimate thousands at least (from the number of people who "found this review helpful"). Maybe more. And to those who criticize the use of Amazon reviews for this purpose, I would ask this question:

Where else can people go to be heard by both EA and their fellow gamers? The Amazon reviews are right at the point of sale, which is the perfect place to let other gamers know about a problem with a game. Other discussion boards have DRM discussions purged and DRM complaints removed (as happened with Amazon UK). The one company doing the right thing here is Amazon U.S., leaving the reviews up.

As I've said before, the real problem isn't the DRM technology, which is a perpetual-motion machine of software that will never work. The real problem is EA's attitude. That's what people want to change. There isn't room in EA's mindset to allow for people who don't like or want DRM, but who do not pirate games and actively oppose those who do. If you oppose their taking advantage of you, you MUST be a pirate-loving slimeball. Their attitude is that DRM is what the paying customers deserve. EA wants to punish their paying customers for the actions of others. They want gamers to jump through their little hoops and do what they're told. Their attitude is that gamers are just consumers, we'll take whatever is shoveled at us with a smile, and we'll keep shelling out the bucks. This is what irritates me the most, and it's why I won't touch products that have DRM, in any form. I'm tired of this attitude. I am not a pirate, I have never been a pirate, and I actively oppose those who are pirates, of media in any form.

To pirates: You want free media and games, use open-sourced stuff or Creative Commons-licensed stuff. Otherwise take your Robin-Hood fantasy and stuff it, you cowards.

I also find that people who haven't been burned by DRM tend to be much less interested in it. They tend to be the people who make the argument "well, it doesn't affect me, it's not a big deal". Those people become converts the moment the DRM hammer comes down, and realize how they've been taken advantage of. People who have been burned by DRM, on the other hand, tend to be much more noisy about it. As more games get released with this stuff and the screws are tightened, more and more people get burned and the anti-DRM crowd grows. It's just a matter of time before most gamers, in one way or another, has been screwed over by a DRM system. I'm willing to wait patiently for the day that Elysium runs afoul of a DRM system, and see what he has to say then.

If, 7 years from now, i have an issue with the DRM on software, what are the chances of getting it resolved?
That ship has sailed. Anti-piracy efforts are 2 decades old.

I think this gets to (half of) the crux of the problem. I play my older games. I come back to the ones that have some worth. You purchase a game, you have bought some physical objects with a (legally inferred) right to use it for as long as you wish within reasonable limits. If there are unusual limits on that use, the software company, if it presents this product without knowledge of these unusual limits, is liable to refund that cost (something software companies used to offer if you did not agree to the eula, but have stopped doing. There may be changes to the laws that I am unaware of due to court cases etc, or they may refund if you get sticky about it, but not advertise that they will). If they tell you about it up front, they are not liable if you say 'well I don't like it because there are limits on it' because you knew that when you bought it.

It was asked how many times people would install a game. Let me check the games I am currently playing
Jagged alliance 2. Have installed at least 6 times, admittedly, 2 of them with the gold pack (or whatever it's called)
World of Warcraft. Installed 5 times. 2 changes of computers, game became corrupted twice.
Eve Online. Installed 4 times. 2 computers, one with a dual boot.
Guild Wars. Lost count. It's big, I needed hard drive space several times. Also changed computer.
Dawn of War:Soulstorm. 4 times. 1 computer change, space issues once, once I had to remove and reinstall because it did not properly integrate the other DoWs
Hellgate:london. Tech issues galore. Let's not go into how many reinstalls because patches got botched etc.
Age of Conan. I'm right at 3 right now, again due to bugs in the game.
7 games on my HD right now, 6 are past 3 installs, one is ... likely to get there. I seriously doubt I am alone in this situation.

And, even if we take it for granted that now is the time for action, that action is negative reviews on Amazon?
YES! If I had an abusive girlfriend, even if she was sexy as hell and good in bed, i'd break up with her and say bad things about her. Why would one expect less from a game that is similarly abusive to your relationship with the software company? The response is in proportion to the issue. The game treated you like refuse, it soured your gaming experience, the game sucked for you... so say so.

Here's a question: what have gamers done to curb or even appear to curb piracy?

From the beginning of piracy, there was an understanding that if you pirate something and it is good, fork out the cash and buy it already. This is a principle still propogated by most of the people that actually crack the games (though since windows took over the meaning of the .nfo extension, the .nfo files are seldom read), and followed by a good portion of those people who pirated games. This was by no means a perfect situation, but sales were notably boosted by after initial launch purchases by those who had pirated the games. This understanding is GONE! IMHO it disappeared somewhere around when the baby boomer generation learned how to use music file sharing, though i'm sure many would debate otherwise.

Do you really think that there will be less DRM as long as gamers tacitly approve of piracy?

A better question. Do you think that there will be less piracy as long as gamers tacitly approve of piracy. DRM is like fighting a tidal wave with a sieve, and here's an example of why.
Jimmy buys spore. He likes spore, so does his wife and both of his kids. He tells Bobby at work about it. Bobby has let him copy other games, so he gives Bobby the key. At this point, EA has lost any chance of selling the game to Bobby. Bobby, having that key, feels he has the right to that install. He possibly legally does.
Jimmy's cousin Steve comes by a month later. His kids love the game. Jimmy gives him the third code for the install.
EA has just lost 2 copies of the game. Those other 2 people, knowing they have a valid unique install/key have no moral incentive to buy the game. They believe they have bought a shared copy and shared it. There's your casual piracy, and the DRM restrictions have made it worse, not better, issues of whether they told us about it or not entirely aside.

If gamers tacitly approve of piracy, piracy WILL happen on any game that does not have an appreciable quantity of the necessary information maintained on a server (which, other than pre-WoW blizz games, largely means an online monthly subscription). The capacity for piracy is one of the prices of a free society (not a benefit, a price).
Many games that were released more than 2 years ago and do not have monthly subscriptions no longer have physical copies produced, no longer get active support, and in many cases, any servers relevant to them are no longer active.
You go up to 4 years ago, support chance and chance to be able to purchase a copy plummets... and does so again as games get older. In the case of games whose popularity exceeded expectations, it is often nearly impossible to buy a new copy. When people run into situations where they simply can not purchase a game, piracy is going to have a certain level of support.
Steam has managed to deal with a lot of these issues, and I think it adds more value than it's restrictions remove. I would like to see an easily accessible page within Steam that summarizes the main restrictions on anything purchased through it, but I have not found them to have abused those controls.
If a war on piracy is to be won, the people need to want a world without piracy. For that to happen, people need to be able to get what they want, how they want. They need to be able, if a game sucks, to go back 2 days later and get a refund. I know many people who will not buy a game until they have tried it on someone else's PC, pirated it, or someone they know well has let them know it is relatively bug free. Lord knows many things these days are not clean bug-wise on release. They need to be able to buy a game (or better yet, have it on record that they already did and just reacquire it) that is older.
Last but not least, they need to SELL the concept that piracy is not only bad but UNNECESSARY.

The problem with this concept is this.
There are a number of customers lost to piracy.
If a game could be refunded if, after playing it for half a day (or failing to because it won't run on your video card etc.), you were not satisfied with it, (something that is now EXPECTED on most purchases we make), it is likely more sales would be lost than every single copy that was pirated on at least 1/3 of the games, probably more.

A lot of money is spent on developing games that have the ... depth of eye candy that we now demand. At the same time, a game now costs LESS than it did 10 years ago. Games need to have more quality assurance, more availability as they become older, some level of guarantee that once we try it, it won't (in our very individual and varied viewpoints) suck... and they need to COST MORE, yes, more. It sucks, but we have good software companies going bust and releasing things before they are ready because we won't pay up front for a good product which the company that made it backs. Instead, we have half finished games that promise to BE finished if we just pay them x per month.

Guild Wars is an example of a good game release. 4 titles, each works together with the others. You can, at present (except perhaps eye of the north) play each one stand alone and purchase however much or little content you wish. The cost of development is charged up front, no monthly fee. If the game remains popular enough to have appreciable server expenses, rest assured, all those people are going to be looking to buy more expansions. The free server use keeps enough content online that it is difficult to use alternative servers, keeping piracy down to virtually nil... oh ... and if you lose your copy? Log in an download a new one. All you need is your login information OR to have the same e-mail (and maybe the CD for ONE of them) Not too hard.
There can be copy protection without the customer feeling run over. There can be gaming models that are highly piracy resistant without being antagonistic to the customer. All that aside, when piracy is tacitly supported, it will happen. Until both the community and the publishers face this and work change their way of thinking, it will do very little.

FelixDrake wrote:

Last but not least, they need to SELL the concept that piracy is not only bad but UNNECESSARY.

This is at the crux of the larger issue with DRM and digital media. There is no reason whatsoever for a digital construct to die, to disappear. None at all. They don't expire, they don't rot, they aren't time-limited in any way. This is how digital media is, and there's no changing it. We, the customers, like this feature. It makes things very easy for us. What the game companies are trying to do is enforce the death of their products, and alter the very structure of digital media. Hulu.com has the same problem - why are there missing episodes for Burn Notice? Because some media company didn't want them permanently on Hulu. The only thing the removal of those shows does is encourage piracy. If people can't rely on the legitimate source, they'll go to another source (or in my case, do without - which is really annoying, but the right thing to do). The legitimate source should be better than the pirates, not the other way around. If the legitimate sources offer a superior service to the pirates, then the piracy problem will be solved to the extent it can be solved.

I haven't investigated this thoroughly, but it looks like people might finally be getting it.

Aetius wrote:

I haven't investigated this thoroughly, but it looks like people might finally be getting it.

"DECE"? This just sounds like a euphemism for a universal DRM standard that everyone would adopt. Not a solution. Just a perpetuation of the problem. DRM is always at risk of becoming entirely useless in the future, once it's no longer supported.

Frankly, I think the "hypothetical hystericals" are winding down. People are, in fact, starting to vote with their wallets. I expect that soon there will be more action, and even less hysterics. We're done talking. The game distributors didn't listen. It's pretty clear from the Amazon reviews and comments that many, many people did not buy Spore because of the DRM - I would estimate thousands at least (from the number of people who "found this review helpful"). Maybe more. And to those who criticize the use of Amazon reviews for this purpose, I would ask this question:

Where else can people go to be heard by both EA and their fellow gamers? The Amazon reviews are right at the point of sale, which is the perfect place to let other gamers know about a problem with a game. Other discussion boards have DRM discussions purged and DRM complaints removed (as happened with Amazon UK). The one company doing the right thing here is Amazon U.S., leaving the reviews up.

My biggest issue is the "noise ratio". Since I dont care about the DRM but would like to read some real reviews from users I find it impossible to navigate through the mess of anti-DRM rants.

nsmike wrote:
Aetius wrote:

I haven't investigated this thoroughly, but it looks like people might finally be getting it.

"DECE"? This just sounds like a euphemism for a universal DRM standard that everyone would adopt. Not a solution. Just a perpetuation of the problem. DRM is always at risk of becoming entirely useless in the future, once it's no longer supported.

Oh, I'm sure there is DRM involved - but at least they are beginning to understand that digital media does not become obsolete, and people want to use it on any device they feel like.