Slashdot Mirror
EMA Suggests Point-Of-Sale Game Activation To Fight Piracy
Gamasutra reports on a set of standards (PDF) published by the Entertainment Merchants Association to promote the use of technology that would "disable" games and DVDs until they are activated when purchased. "The effort is codenamed 'Project Lazarus,' and the EMA says it's assembled a consortium of retailers, home video companies and video game publishers to see how easily such 'benefit denial technology' could be implemented, and to evaluate possible cost-benefit analyses. The initiative is similar to security tags used in clothing retail that spill ink on garments if they're forcibly removed, thereby destroying the item. In such a situation, shoplifting is discouraged by implementing a solution that only the retailer can remove at the point of sale."
This sounds like a solution for people who steal keys out of retail boxes.
If the key isn't activated due to a sale, it can't be used online.
I see no problems with this. I hope they don't think it will actually affect single player game piracy.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
So basically the pirates will have a version that has nothing to trip people up but the legit customer who happens to not get activated by the minimum wage clerk is screwed and must wait AND waste gas to take it back? Yeah, please video game industry, make it easier and easier to justify piracy. I have plenty of money and like to support the people who make games I enjoy but it's really easier to just pirate this stuff since the game industry is more and more anti-consumer all the time.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Remember, no refunds on opened software. Have a nice day, thank you for shopping Super-Duper Mart!
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
The initiative is similar to security tags used in clothing retail that spill ink on garments if they're forcibly removed, thereby destroying the item. In such a situation, shoplifting is discouraged by implementing a solution that only the retailer can remove at the point of sale.
But it's not similar at all. Similar would be putting an acetone-filled tag through the hole in the CD that only the retailer can remove, to destroy it if it's shoplifted.
The reason the difference is important is this scheme isn't to fight shoplifting, the theft of a physical item. This is to fight copyright infringement, and it's like fighting people who make cheap knockoffs of designer clothes. Admittedly, this is much easier to do on a large scale than copying a physical item, but the scale of it does not magically make it become theft.
And the other part of where the analogy breaks down? I don't need an internet connection to put on my clothes after the retailer takes off the tag.
Call me lame and perhaps not a true enthusiast to the cause, but the DRM I've encountered hasn't really bothered me.
You've apparently not played any game that used StarForce.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
To be fair, activation-requiring games haven't been around very long. You might have a different opinion in a few years when EA decides old games are past their "support date" and turns off the activation servers, or you've upgraded your PC a few times and run out of re-activations.
Many game publishers regularly shut down all online support for their games a few years after release. Services like Direct2Drive and the Microsoft Store limit your activations or remove downloads after a certain period of time. Steam is the exception in this case, as they explicitly state that they will never remove or disable your games, but many publishers insist on adding their own activation scheme on top of Steam's DRM.
Claiming that DRM hasn't bothered you reminds me of the optimist falling from the skyscraper: Every few floors he tells himself "I'm feeling fine, so far!"
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I hope you know you can run steam in offline mode, and still have full access to all your single-player content. In fact, when I recently had an interruption in service while I switched providers, all I really played was single-player games I had previously purchased via Steam.
People on slashdot CONSTANTLY complain about that, and I can't help but facepalm. Has it really gotten to the point where the vnboards are better able to understand the programs they use every day than slashdot? FACEPALM
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
It's pointless, pirate buys one copy breaks the protection than uploads that to the web. Congrats EA, you've managed one additional sale at the expense of many dozens of sales to people who now are unable to run the software.
dude, this is not DRM, this is to stop people shoplifting. You might as well rant and spit about security tags on clothes.
try reading the article before you hit the "OH NOES TEH DRM" button.
Plus who the fuck buys games for $60? The only place I ever see $60 mentioned is by people complaining about not buying them.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
*HEAVY SIGH*
This is NOT DRM The story is NOT ABOUT DRM. DRM is not the issue.
This is about preventing shoplifting.
Is it not possible for there to be ANY story ANYWHERE on-line about games, without people gushing about how they hate DRM, even when the story is NOTHING to do with it?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
In short, Steam provides a DRM scheme, but it also provides enough of a benefit that it's a worthwhile trade. In fact, many of the restrictions imposed by the DRM scheme are things you would have to sacrifice anyway for the network -- for example, the need to be online all the time, the need for constant updates, and the need to run their proprietary software (a given for any game).
Contrast this to SecuROM games, or even moreso, movies -- in these cases, the DRM scheme provides no value. There is no tradeoff to make me want to deal with the DRM -- and worse, the pirated copy is a better product.
That's the essential difference, I think. A pirated Valve game is worth less than a legitimate copy. A pirated EA game is worth more than a legitimate copy.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
at the number of big box stores which don't lock these game cards up. The problem is especially bad at Target, where more than a dozen of different games were obviously "opened" along the seam. Even after explaining it to the the customer service people I swear they didn't care or understand. I did get them to allow for my opening the box in front of them to confirm if it had a game card in it, took three of the ones that looked sealed to get it.
Stores need to understand, these things are as valuable as the gift cards they sell. They are real money.
Any subscription based game should follow the activation method, it will save a lot of grief for the customer. It really helps us more than the stores because it isn't easy to get the store to refund it (I would hate to see what BB would think if you told them the game card was missing and you had left the store already). Yet for stand alone games I don't think it is necessary
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This is about preventing shoplifting.
You prevent shoplifting by putting the games behind the counter and putting the empty boxes on the shelf. It's low tech, reliable, and not a lot more manual than activation.
Provide the dealer with a printed card the size of the jewelbox they can put on the shelf without having to open the game and put the CD into storage like they do now. Problem solved, cheaply.
I hereby donate this idea to the public domain.