EA Releases DRM License Deactivation Tool

Dr_Barnowl writes "Electronic Arts has posted a SecuROM de-authorization management tool. Once downloaded, the tool will search your drives for EA games infested with the draconian online DRM system, and help you download their respective individual de-activation tools. This isn't a perfect solution, since it's still possible to run out of activations in the event of hardware failure or other source of data loss, but since the announcement that this particular DRM system will be dropped for The Sims 3 , it would seem that EA has had a minor epiphany about DRM." I'm sure EA's hand was forced in part by the FTC's recent warning against deceptive DRM practices. Hal Halpin of the Entertainment Consumers Association commented further on the issue, suggesting to developers that such measures need to be displayed on game boxes, and that standardization of EULAs could be next on the list.

Comments

Standardized EULA

[haystor]

Having a standardized EULA would be a bad thing if it were standardized by the government. They'd be unilaterally agreeing to the terms of the EULA, while right now it is unclear if a EULA is even binding at all.

Re:Standardized EULA

[snowraver1]

At least you would have an idea what your rights are, and the rights of the publisher. As it stands now, you have no rights, and really, so idea of the publishers rights either, becuase, really, who reads the EULA?

Re:Standardized EULA

[mrchaotica]

As it stands now, you have no rights...

Only if the EULA is upheld, that is. The typical EULA should be declared null and void by any reasonable court, for several reasons (contract of adhesion, doctrine of first sale, etc.).

Re:Standardized EULA

[geobeck]

The typical EULA should be declared null and void by any reasonable court...

You have to go through a pretty big haystack to find that needle.

Re:Standardized EULA

[Sloppy]

We already have a binding standardized EULA. It's called Copyright (and since around 1997 it has started to get a little unbalanced).

Most publishers don't really need their EULAs to go beyond that. Those that want to, should never be granted any legitimizing status as "standard."

Re:Standardized EULA

[RiotingPacifist]

i scroll down check for the part where it says

[this] License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software

and figure it cant be too bad so accept.

Re:Standardized EULA

[Lord Ender]

The best solution would be a standard COTS license, regulated by the FTC, that explicitly permits archival, resale, returns etc.. Any software which wants to use some other license would need a proper paper signature to be enforcable. End the "by breathing you agree to..." EULA forever. The software industry and software consumers both need this.

Re:Standardized EULA

[TheRaven64]

I don't think I've ever seen that line in an End User License Agreement. In a distribution license, once or twice, but that's a completely different matter and doesn't need to be accepted to use the software.

Re:Standardized EULA

[Hatta]

There is a government standardized EULA. It's called copyright law.

Re:Standardized EULA

[dgatwood]

...and doesn't need to be accepted to use the software.

It does if the software is AGPL, assuming that your definition of "use" includes installing/deploying it on a server....

Re:Standardized EULA

[Golddess]

-1 Interesting?

That's... interesting.

Re:Standardized EULA

[Adrian Lopez]

I think we should standardize on EULAs being non-binding on all terms except those that grant new rights under particular terms. Thus, Free Software licenses are valid while licenses that take away existing rights are not.

To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Smidge207]

*sigh* Here we go again. Seriously, a code is the most simplistic and effective means of copy protection. One key = one install. Simple as that.

If you implement measures, that online / LAN multiplay is restricted to valid and unique CD-keys and executables cannot be cracked easily is one of the most reasonable methods to balance between players and publishers available.

It serves the following purposes:
- prevent non-paying customers from using unpaid-for online servers
- (inofficially) let people (via keygens) rather freely test-drive the full software, offline on their own machine with the option to buy a key and make your installation legit and online-enabled in seconds.
- ban detected cheaters from online play and introduce a financial risk to cheating (you have to buy a new key when you're caught) which deters non-hardcore cheaters from trying
- prevent mass copying of your software: if the same key is encountered online in the thousands, disable the key
- all this encourages defined and responsible ownership of the software: if you give out your key, you possibly cannot play online anymore

- and inofficially: limit the resale-value of a used key: as a buyer, you cannot be sure if the key is not banned for cheating or shared with the entire school/workplace of the reseller.

I don't know of people who been hindered from doing legit things with their paid-for software because of a cd-key. But I know several people who "test-drove" dozens of pirated games with a keygen who found out the game was so crappy that even downloading it was a waste of money and time.

=Smidge=

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I'm working on a title that has no multiplayer component because it makes no sense for the game. How do you propose to address this issue for single-player games? I'm open to reasonable solutions--I do not expect piracy to stop because of any methods I can do, I'm just attempting to dissuade the casual copying; the "test-drive" argument doesn't hold much water because the first twenty percent of the game, about ten hours or so, will be freely available as a demo.

Suggestions?

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[corsec67]

Simple question:
Do you want the version people pay money for to be as good as the version without DRM that they can get from The Pirate Bay?

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

That's not a simple question at all.

Of course I want it to be that easy. But making that easy vastly increases the likelihood of small-scale copies (letting a friend borrow the disc, etc.), which for an independent game is considerably more problematic than TPB.

Your approach is "give it to us or we'll steal it." You know what my reply to that is? "Fuck you, I won't release it at all."

Creators deserve to make money, too. I want a solution where everyone benefits.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if you have a demo or not. Some people, myself included, have simply gotten used to a full-version "free trial" being a click away, and the fact is, it's a better demo. So why should I download a limited demo when the full version is equally simple to get? I at least find it more convenient to get a "demo" from my favorite torrent site where I know it will be waiting, instead of having to hitchhike across half the web looking for the official site with a demo that may or may not exist. For the record, yes, I do still buy many of the games I previously downloaded. It's all a matter of quality and price.

My advice to you is to not worry about who is stealing your game and instead keep your focus on improving the experience for the people who buy it. Otherwise, you end up like EA here, with legions of people just waiting for an excuse to bash you or to use your negligence as justification for not buying your game. As you have realized, you can't stop piracy, so your best course of action is to give people as few reasons as possible to pirate. That means making sure that the legitimate copies of your program never interferes, annoys, or -devalues itself- to the customer.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a thief. Be honest about it.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I appreciate your candor, but at the same time it's still entirely unacceptable. Why should I--why should anyone, for that matter--release something that you'll pay for "if you feel like it"? Frankly, I question whether you buy "many" of those games at all. If you do, you're in the vast majority.

I have no interest in having my work valued at zero unless you "feel like it." I can just as easily not release it. I create for me, but if you're going to receive utility from it, I expect to be compensated. I mean, I'm not making this game to make millions, but I expect to be treated fairly by those who consume what I create. I've already done the interesting stuff. I can just as easily throw the code and assets in a safe-deposit box for all I care (and I mean that quite seriously). And while some people find it odd that I'd expect payment for something I could put away without blinking, I think it's consistent: compensate the creator for the utility you derive from the creation.

I'd rather see people enjoy it, of course. But I expect to be treated fairly, as a matter of principle. If not--oh well. Maybe I'll show it to people I like, who I think will like it. Or maybe I'll just take the J.D. Salinger approach. Doesn't really bother me either way.

So back to the original question: how do we ensure fairness for both parties? Steam is a possibility, with the average-user difficulty of breaking Steam's authentication (it's doable, but a hassle, and it's much, much easier to play by Steam's rules). Possibly the only really viable one right now.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[badboy_tw2002]

Obviously you can make money providing support or documentation for your game: that's the FOSS way.

In terms of a game, just release a version without any sensible controls or UI, and have them call you while they play it so you can dig around the logs and tell them they are low on life and should probably go find a health pack. Alternately, you can provide customization support such that they can add scripts to get the info without having to dig through the logs. That HUD script in turn will be rewritten in a "better" language and released as a fork with a slightly different license, at which time your userbase will splinter into two camps - both whom are completely right and the spawn of Satan at the same time.

See now, that wasn't so hard was it?

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

This topic always pisses me off, and I needed a laugh. Thanks. :-)

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[corsec67]

The question is simple, the answer could be very complex.

You could package the game with some tangible thing that has value, like a figurine, or something that isn't digital.

Offer support, some kind of online services, etc.

DRM is adding code to the game that is designed to be defective, to fail unless certain conditions are met. That is making your game less likely to work, and indeed making a cracked version of the game more valuable to some people.

DRM will not affect the people who aren't going to pay anyways, since they will use the cracked version. DRM will not affect the people who satisfy the requirements for the DRM to work. The people who have a complex situation will be hurt by DRM, and could be less likely to buy your game, since it might fail for them. Then there are the people who want to casually borrow the game, is your DRM going to stop them without too much collateral damage; will it make them want to pay instead of getting a cracked version?

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[ndunnuck]

I suggest you build a very good and thoughtful game, sold at a reasonable price (say, $20) that will garner you a cult-classic status. Use a simple copy-protect scheme that sends the message, "Hey, I'd prefer it if you actually bought this game..." Many people will pirate your game, use keygens, etc. But some will do the right thing and pay for it. If it's popular enough, someone down the line will toss you a few pence for the right to add your game to a collection and sell it for $5.

Either your game will be popular, or it won't. If it's not popular, then no one will buy it, but neither will they pirate it. The only pirated copies out there will be people who would never have paid for it. And at least your name is on it. If it IS popular, then lots of people will pirate it, but even those pirated copies will come from somehwere - original, paid versions. You have to be prepared for the fact that your title will probably fail. That's the inherent risk you are taking in exchange for the possibility of making money doing something you love. It's the essence of capitalism. And the fact that such a thing is even possible is a minor miracle.

Finally, find some way to add cool tangibles or addons to your package. For example, expansion packs that can only be purchased with a valid key, or large, professionally printed maps of the terrain, or a mini-book that compliments the game. All of these things will make some people want to own an original edition.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[AmaDaden]

You know what my reply to that is? "Fuck you

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Due to all the information that we have at our finger tips if you ever even look like you are thinking this you will get your ass handed to you. People HATE giving money to people they feel are assholes. If they have to then they have to. But if they can avoid it they will.

The other side of this is that if they hear good things about you they will come to you. The next pair of shoes I buy I will buy though Zappos. Why? Look at these stories. http://consumerist.com/tag/zappos/

As for you making money I would recommend
1)Accept donations. Some people might like your stuff so much they will over pay for it.
2)Ask people who did pirate the game to donate if they liked it. This sounds dumb but it's a way of saying "Look I know some of you are gonna steal this game and there is nothing I can do about it. But Please if you actually like it and would like to see more post-pay for it. I'm not gonna be a jerk about it. I'm just trying to make a living." Most people have trouble ripping off people that are honest and human.
3)Try to make it easier to buy then steal. Steam is great network for that. At this point I buy games on steam so that I never have to go CD fishing ever again if I want to play an old game

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

Package a game with some tangible thing -- that increases both my costs and the cost of the game, and in theory drives more people to piracy. Plus, there's pretty few ways, if any, for an independent developer to actually provide anything in that tangible form that anybody would actually want.

Support -- dunno about you, man, but I'd hope that a game doesn't need support. If it does, I didn't do my job as a developer and a designer.

Online services -- this is possible/plausible, especially if I do add the possibility of a multiplayer component (the problem being that everything's balanced for single-player, and multiplayer involves ongoing costs).

Steam is looking more and more tempting, really. Or try to get a WiiWare kit (the game has HTPC and standard-TV resolution modes already, wouldn't be too hard!) and go that route.

I have zero interest in making life more difficult for those who purchase the game. But, at the same time, I just expect a modicum of fairness afforded to me as the creator ('specially as I've got a couple artists and a fellow musician to pay...).

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[hplus]

It is an unfortunate fact that any effort you make to deny access to those who have not paid has the potential to affect those who have paid as well. It's not quite a zero-sum game, since some options are better than others, but there is nothing that you can do that will satisfy A) you B) paying customers C) potential customers. As you've mentioned, Steam is a pretty good compromise, plus it's convenient and might make people more likely to stumble on your game. Aside from that, a simple product key system that doesn't "phone home" to a central server is probably your best bet. That will deter casual pirates, and not lock out people without internet access. You get bonus points if you have some sort of key recovery system where customers can request another copy of their key if it is lost.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course I want it to be that easy. But making that easy vastly increases the likelihood of small-scale copies (letting a friend borrow the disc, etc.), which for an independent game is considerably more problematic than TPB.

Not to be an ass, but letting a friend borrow the disc to play the game is a perfectly valid exercise of consumer rights, just like selling a secondhand copy to someone else is. Now, letting a friend borrow the disc to copy, or letting them "borrow" a copy you've made yourself, agreed.

Your goal, then, is to make a game that has some sort of lasting interest. That way, even if I let someone borrow my copy of the game, I'll want it back. That way, the friend will want to keep playing it enough to pony up for a copy as well.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

Eh. To an extent, you're right. Although I'm actually probably the exception in that it's really not about the money. I said upthread that I'd be A-OK with throwing it in a safe-deposit box--the money is less important than an ethical transaction where both parties tangibly benefit (the purchaser in the entertainment value and utility of the product, me in being able to take my girlfriend out to lunch).

Tangible stuff is an issue when my budget is essentially $0. A book has been tempting, as I've essentially written one as part of the design process (and not to toot my own horn too much, but I'm a pretty good writer)--but having no budget for printing, etc. is suck-worthy.

I'm still thinking Steam to be the happy medium. Only the dedicated few bother to crack Steam games. And besides, I'm aiming for a price point of $15...that seems about where Steam games tend to move copies.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[RobertLTux]

hows about doing some sort of key that "brands" the copy with the email address of the registered user

just be honest with your users you want money to be able to

1 get rent cherrios jack yaddah
2 make the next version

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[orclevegam]

Do two things. First, just use a simple key system (don't require online authentication, that's just a pain, just validate that it's a potentially valid key), and don't worry about people installing their friends copy, they'd do it anyway if they're so inclined and nothing you can do that wouldn't also cost you paying customers is going to change that. Second require them to register on your website with the provided key in order to receive support by way of updates, patches, forums, and maybe some sort of incentive they can download that's fun to have but not strictly necessary (like say maybe a new interface skin or something). This maintains balance by not requiring anything of the paying customers, but also provides incentive in the way of eliminating hassles and providing minor bonuses for those that do actually pay.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[__aasqbs9791]

The problem is you're asking an impossible question. It is no different than asking, "How do we stop all theft?" You can't. There's your answer. No one has been able to do it, ever.

If your game is good, you will be paid something. Will every person who plays it pay for it? No. Will everyone who plays it even like it? No. That is true for every game ever made, though. I'd suggest including a simple way in the game for people to pay for it (paypal or something maybe) and once someone has paid they get a "Paid - Thank you" notice in the corner of the start up screen or something.

And if you are too caught up on each and every player paying for the game, don't release it. You won't be happy when it shows up on TPB (assuming you ever looked for it), and it will. In fact, the longer it takes, the worse the game problem is (to the average player).

The only way to make sure the creator is paid for every single copy is only ever going to happen when every single install requires individual effort from the creator. If there is no cost to the creator, some people will not see a problem with installing it without paying for it. Welcome to digital copies. Hell, even if there was a direct cost for every installation, some people still wouldn't have a problem with it.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I actually thought of something interesting.

A key system that does phone home--but does the validation on the user side. If the key's not legitimate, i.e. a keygen result, it won't be in the server database, though the game still unlocks. It doesn't change the game at all, but instead displays a message that more or less says only "I know this key isn't legitimate, but I'm going to let you play the game anyway." Let the versions unlocked with this, just keep the "Register This Copy" button on the homepage. (I plan to do registration through PayPal, built straight into the game, in the first place, if somebody wants to bypass the need to go input the key themselves the first time--so they can still go get a legitimate copy if they want.)

Could be workable. I doubt a pirate is likely to spend any time cracking it when all they have to do is sit through a "do you really want to just steal this game?" message before being allowed in.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[ndunnuck]

Perhaps publishing on-demand, then. "Buy my game online and receive XXX cool packaging stuffs (within a few weeks)." Distribution-wise, Steam is a good way to get started - or Impulse, to which I'm partial because of their affiliation with Stardock.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

Never seen Impulse. I'll take a look at them.

Publishing on demand could be nifty. I don't know if I've ever seen that done.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[taucross]

Your approach is "give it to us or we'll steal it." You know what my reply to that is? "Fuck you, I won't release it at all."

Well the sad thing is, nobody will mourn the death of an indie game. Ever. I suggest you take a leap of faith. The alternative is, nobody will ever care.

It's very difficult to own an idea, the tighter you squeeze, the more it slips through your fingers.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

Except that in a real situation, you'll just burn your copy of the game for that friend, removing the need for getting-it-back. Hence the quandary.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

Steam is probably the way I'll go, if not something a little more out-there and experimental.

But, frankly, if somebody thinks I'm an asshole for not wanting other people to avail themselves of utility from something I create without compensating me for my time and effort? I'm really OK with that.

I'm not looking to make millions, or even more than a couple nice dinners. But I'm big on ethics and moral fairness. If people want to call me an asshole for that, that's their call.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Chosen Reject]

I'd say just publish the game. If everyone copies it and you make no money, oh well. Maybe they'll buy your next work after you get a brand going. Or try a new business model as some have already suggested, or make one up yourself. Or, if you don't want to do any of that, "[d]on't release it at all." We won't be any worse off, and neither will you.

The reality is that copyright was intended as an incentive to get works of creativity into our culture, but many people don't need that incentive, others don't respect the bargain (from both consumer and producer ends), and still others don't find it enough of an incentive. If you don't want to release your game, then don't. No one will ever say, "I sure wish FishWithAHammer released his game" because they'll never have heard of you. If on the other hand you release it with current business models, you might make money, you might not, and that may or may not have anything to do with piracy or quality. If you release it with a new business model, you may or may not succeed and that may or may not have anything to do with the business model or quality. It's up to you to decide, but this much I can guarantee, paying customers don't like it when the free version is better than the paid-for version, and despite what many people might think, it is possible to compete with free, free can be a part of your business model, and most people still pay for value.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

That's OK by me. I make stuff for me. This is not at odds with the idea of not releasing it: if I'm going to release it, I expect to be treated fairly by the consumer. If the consumer isn't going to treat me fairly and compensate me for my time and effort, I'm not against flinging it in a safe-deposit box once it's complete. My mind's at ease. :-)

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Plekto]

The easiest way is to add physical content. Way way back in the days of 8 bit computing, there was the Ultima series of games. Now, they could easily be cracked, of course, but the real reason everyone bought the real game was because the thing HAD NO TUTORIAL. You absolutely required the map and instruction manual to understand how to play the game. It also was far too large to easily copy.

Other games required a complex manual to be able to identify enemy units and understand specifics and tactics as well. Submarine and aircraft simulations come to mind here - few people pirated them because you needed the manual to play it properly.

Other games have such a huge set of rules that you need it - the NeverWinter Nights series is a good example. You're always flipping the manual back and forth to look up something.

Where game companies go wrong is that they ship the games in a tiny DVD box, have a idiot-proof tutorial, no manual(but a PDF file!), and a lot of hand-holding, as well as an easy way to look up and reassign keys. As a result, there's no reason to do anything other than obtain the program and go. I don't expect this approach to work, though. Most of the younger players are seriously dumb as a rock and would whine about having to read and use their brains for a change.

But a 100 page printed manual that's required to really play and get the most out of a game, or other items... That's worth something. So the compromise solution would be quite easy:

- stop releasing the help guides for the games and include one in the box. My son wants that new Pokemon game and the $19.95 help book for it is 300+ pages long and almost 2 inches thick(!). If the only way to get that was to buy the actual game... Problem solved.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I agree with pretty much all of your post. And it's all OK by me. I'm OK with not releasing it, and nobody caring. I make stuff, be it music, prose, or games, for me, and nobody else.

However, I'm big on the concept of a fair deal. I'm not going to put something out there to get screwed over. It's not part of my set of ethics. I'm OK with putting it into a safe-deposit box. I've already done the creative work, it's fine by me.

I do, however, contest the assertion that most gamers will pay for value. The games industry in particular is where piracy reigns. Perhaps gamers interested in indie gaming are different, but I kind of question it.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Chelloveck]

Of course I want it to be that easy. But making that easy vastly increases the likelihood of small-scale copies (letting a friend borrow the disc, etc.), which for an independent game is considerably more problematic than TPB.

I wouldn't worry about small-scale stuff. It is, by definition, small scale. Which means it's not worth bothering your legitimate customers to eke a few more dollars out of people who share it with a friend.

If I wanted to make a for-pay game like this, the first thing I would do is make sure that the demo doesn't contain any of the extra levels the purchased copy has. Make the demo a completely separate build and make it impossible to convert the demo into the full version. That will greatly reduce the effectiveness of distributing cracked keys or keygen programs.

Are you planning on physical distribution media, or download-only? If it's download-only you can embed some personal information ("This copy registered to ${NAME}") in the binary. This will be unique to each purchaser, and will discourage people from anything more than casual sharing.

For physical media (or even for downloads, if you don't want to watermark each binary individually) you can embed the personal information in the license key. This has pretty much the same effect as above. People will be more reluctant to share their keys around.

Sure, real pirates will immediately remove the personalization -- but there's nothing you can do to thwart the real pirates anyway. You're just trying to keep the honest people honest.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[RiotingPacifist]

damn i jsut ran out of mod points

People HATE giving money to people they feel are assholes. If they have to then they have to. But if they can avoid it they will.

SO true, while i could most likely pirate pennyarcade's drm less game, i have not and will not, why? because i like the guys. on the otherhand OFC i have a pirated copy of spore despite its DRM because i have no intention of paying for something produced by EA.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[orclevegam]

I have no interest in having my work valued at zero unless you "feel like it." I can just as easily not release it.

Having never seen or played your game (to my knowledge) I currently value it at zero. Even if I had seen it (and even played it), I'd probably still value it at or around zero, sorry, but that's just the way things go with a free market. No one is guaranteed success, and just because you wrote a game does not intrinsically mean it has value to everyone nor more importantly that it has the same value to anyone. Now, I can sympathize with you, I'm a programmer and I do like to think that what I make has value and that people are willing to pay for it, however the onus is on me to convince the public that my software is worth paying for, and no amount of DRM is going to do that for even half of the public.

Your potential market for any piece of software can be broken down into a number of categories and various things you do will effect exactly how that breakdown occurs. The categories are as follows:

• Doesn't even know about your software
• Is aware of your software but not interested in it
• Is aware of your software but values it at less than what you're asking for it
• Is aware of your software and values it at more than what you're asking for it

Now, on the topic of that third category (Is aware of your software but values it at less than what you're asking for it) this is where your pirates come from. It's important to note that some people will value your software at or very close to zero and will therefore never pay for it no matter what you do, so some of these people might as well be considered lost sales no matter what. Your job is to try to maximize sales to all categories and this is accomplished in a number of ways. In the case of categories 1 and 2 (don't know and not interested respectively) advertising and demos (either full or partial) go a long way towards shifting these two into groups 3 and 4. Group 4 is essentially sold already, all you need to do with them is keep shipping a quality product that works well and doesn't hassle the paying customer. Group 3 is the problem group. Your options to win them over are to lower your prices, or convince them that your product has more value in it (demos, and various incentives are a great way to do this as the demo gets them actually interacting with your product and able to more fully evaluate it, and the incentives are effectively added to the value of the base product).

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[SCPRedMage]

http://steampowered.com/steamworks/

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[AmaDaden]

Your missing the point. It's not a mater of not being an asshole because you want to be nice. It's a matter of not being an ass hole because that is fast becoming an important modern business practice and it will make you more money in the long run. By all means be a jerk behind closed doors but if your customers ask for anything you need to be as nice and helpful as you can. If you don't make money by helping someone today by being the nice guy you will get business from that you would not have in the future.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Chosen Reject]

Package a game with some tangible thing -- that increases both my costs and the cost of the game

Adding DRM costs money too, but instead of adding value, like a tangible thing, it takes away value. If those were your only choices, it sounds like add cost and value, or add cost and remove value. Also, DRM drives people to piracy as well.

Plus, there's pretty few ways, if any, for an independent developer to actually provide anything in that tangible form that anybody would actually want.

Then I would say your game doesn't have much value to anyone. If, on the other hand, somebody out there (even if it's just a few) really like your game, they will be willing to pay for it. Offer a tiered approach. Something like this:

Basic ($5):
The game

Upgrade 1 ($10):
Basic
+ Nicely printed manual

Upgrade 2 ($15):
Upgrade 1
+ Signed poster

Upgrade 3 ($50):
Upgrade 2
+ Phone call from you

Upgrade 4 ($100):
Upgrade 3
+ Beta access to your next work

Now these may or may not work for you or your game. But let's say they do, you could even give the game away for free. You'd really be amazed at what people will pay for. No, it's not the majority of people, but you don't need the majority. You just need enough. In fact, from the sound of your reply to me earlier, you don't even need to release the game at all. This means you are in a perfect situation to try something new. Very little risk, with the potential for a big reward.

As an example, check out Jill Sobule. She offered tiered levels and made more than $75,000.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[hplus]

That's a pretty good idea. I think that the more personal you can make the message, the more effective it will be. If potential pirates can follow a link to your homepage and see other projects that you've worked on, or other things that you have contributed to the community, they would be less likely to pirate your software.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[TheRaven64]

PennyArcade's game phones home and limits the number of installs. Unless they've changed the rules recently, it is not DRM-free. This is why I didn't buy it (and, no, I didn't pirate it either; if it's not worth buying, it's not worth pirating either).

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[RiotingPacifist]

you have 2 major problems:
1) Offline DRM is COMPLETELY flawed, the only way you can even get close to working drm is if you offer legitimate users something reasonable in exchange for connecting to your servers. A good online game play experience, downloadable content (cheep/free or even full priced), etc, all allow you to offer legitimate customers benefits while excluding those without keys.
2) You *come across* as a bit of an asshole, if you want people to pay for something they can get for free, stop talking

I create for me, but if you're going to receive utility from it, I expect to be compensated.

If you created it for YOU, what are we* compensating you for?
Bandwidth? No the .torrent lets us takes care of that
Support? well you could only give that to legit customers

given that you have already made the game for yourself. you can do one of the following:
1) keep it, make $0.00
2) release it at a reasonable price point, forget about drm make some money, but be expected to support it for that money
3) open source it and ask for donations (probably make very little, but you don't need to support anything)

p.s given your low opinion of the game (assuming nobody would pay for it if they had the choice) and lack of enthusiasm (if you thought it was something truly great, you'd care a bit more about getting it out there and less about making money off it), i honestly think it makes very little difference which choice you make as you'll be sourly disappointed by the returns on any of them.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That reminds me of a Commodore 64 program I bought that required the manual. It wasn't a thick manual, but it was black print on red paper! Impossible to photocopy. From memory, it required the user to enter a single word from a specific line on a specific page of the manual when you loaded it. Personally, I think this was a great way to protect the product, with minimal fuss for the legit user. Cheers.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[orclevegam]

I like the concept but I'm wondering how you deal with no internet connectivity? If it can't dial home does it just assume the copy is pirated? If so that's a minor annoyance (depending on how you implement it) but hopefully not enough of one to garner complaints from paying customers. If I might suggest you probably should modify the message if it fails to contact the server to say something along the lines of "I can't contact our server to verify this key, if you paid for this game thank you for your support and please ignore the registration link. If you have pirated this game please consider registering as your support provides incentive for future work." This will hopefully prevent paying customers from feeling like you're accusing them of piracy in the event they're in a situation where they have no internet access (such as the oft reported cases of military personnel in foreign countries).

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[orclevegam]

Some people place value in the artifacts of the development process itself. If you offered a downloadable PDF of your development notes (either all or select ones) and scans of early concept work or random scribbles (back of napkin kind of stuff) you'd probably be amazed at how many people would be interested in acquiring said PDF. If you do decide to go with Steam (not a bad choice all around) you might consider a "deluxe" version for a few bucks more that included some extras such as the previously mentioned design notes.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

If it's not connected, yes, that would be the plan. "I can't verify if this was a legal key; if you'd like to verify later--you don't have to, but I'd appreciate it--please click here. If you aren't a legal purchaser, enjoy the game, but please consider registering on the front page."

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I like this idea. I've got something like six or seven full legal pads of various bits and pieces, could go through and find the interesting stuff. Plus, my artists have concept work, etc. which I'm legally entitled to use.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

(demos, and various incentives are a great way to do this as the demo gets them actually interacting with your product and able to more fully evaluate it, and the incentives are effectively added to the value of the base product)

And then comes the pirate's whine "but it's not the whole game, I haven't gotten to see if I want to buy all of it."

Personally, I'm leaning toward either Steam or the safe-deposit box, although I thought of an interesting idea upthread: have a product key that is checked against a central server--but not for authentication. It will be entirely possible to have keys that have just not been issued. And the game won't be disabled--but it will be noted to be a pirated version, and the "register this game" link won't be grayed out.

It's an unhealthy thing on Slashdot, and most other places, that it's "unfair" for a developer to do something to protect his/her product. But it's never "unfair" to steal from them. To me, it's not about the money. It's about fairness. I really could just chuck it in a box. I wouldn't blink. But I'd rather be able to share it--but with sharing it comes an expectation that the work and effort put into the game be validated by the consumer. If it won't, I just don't feel strongly against not releasing it, even after it's done.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[TheRaven64]

If you're making it for yourself, and not to make money, then have you considered making it open source? There's something immensely satisfying about watching someone else fix your bugs...

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I have considered it and rejected it. As I said: I'm making it for myself. Not for anyone else, and not for some nebulous "community."

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[spire3661]

Letting a friend borrow a game should not be problematic.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[orclevegam]

It's not that it isn't unfair, it's just that there's nothing that can be reasonably done about it. In a perfect world we wouldn't need cops or courts because everyone would obey the laws, and no one would ever be mugged, raped, or murdered. Women carry pepper spray (or tazers or guns) in case they need to defend themselves, that's a reasonable response, but they don't go around holding a gun to the head of every male they run across and demanding that they prove they weren't going to mug or rape them. In the same way you as a developer can take reasonable precautions to try to protect your software but must understand that nothing you do is going to be 100% effective and if you introduce behavior that leads to hassles for your legitimate customers you're going to lose sales and have people complaining. The most important thing you need to remember is that there's no such thing as "fair" or "unfair" in the real world, their academic concepts like justice. We might aspire to fairness, and hope that our fellow human beings are decent people and will fairly compensate us for our efforts, but the reality is that most of the time they won't, and there really isn't much of anything we can do about it.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I would agree--if not for "borrow" invariably being "let me burn you a copy."

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Blublu]

That's fine, but if you're using any free software at all in your life, you should think about your attitude.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

SO true, while i could most likely pirate pennyarcade's drm less game, i have not and will not, why? because i like the guys. on the otherhand OFC i have a pirated copy of spore despite its DRM because i have no intention of paying for something produced by EA.

So in other words, stealing the value of someone's time and effort is OK depending on who you're taking it from? I wish my morals were that flexible, life would be easy.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

My suggestion is a very simple key system with no online validation. There's no magic bullet that will stop people from pirating. However hard you make it, if the game is worth playing someone will go to the trouble of cracking it and releasing the crack.

The people who were going to pay for it will pay for it anyway. The ones who would pirate it will do so anyway. This is fatalist, but also true.

As you mention, it's the casual copiers that you want to stop- the ones who might not stop to think that maybe they shouldn't just give a copy to a friend without ensuring it gets paid for.

A simple product key scheme can remind them of that, especially if the caption to that key entry screen is something like "This game is not free. It cost time and money to develop. Please purchase your product key at our secure web site [linked url here] for only $x. "

You could take it one step further: require the game to register once with the web site, to ensure that each key is a) one that you provided and b) is not already in use. Make it very easy to replace a key to get another install - submit their existing key + email address to a form, get a new key (and deactivate the old). This only works if you will be selling by download in the first place, otherwise you can't reasonably add something that requires a connection.

The above is a relatively simple scheme (similar to what GP suggested, but not quite the same) that will stop the next level of casual copiers: "I'll just use my friend's key to install it". It won't stop someone from using a keygen, but the person who goes to download a keygen wasn't going to pay anyway.

(And holy carp... ten hours for first 20%? What genre/kind of game?)

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[commodore64_love]

I had a Commodore Amiga game with that same copy "black print on red paper" protection. It was copyable, albeit very hard to read. In most cases you could get past the protection by typing the same two words, so it was not very well done.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, I see that you understand the Open Source model completely. I salute your sagacity.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

Sure there is. Can I get a shitty WarGames quote here? ;-)

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

They choose to release their code for a community. I am not. When I have a library I'd like to see used or will provide value to others, I release it under an ethical open-source license (that is, nothing tainted by Richard fucking Stallman and the FSF) such as the CDDL. I have no interest in offering this as open source software, though pieces may find their way into open-source code I use later if I find it expedient.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I'm probably going to go with Steam, if not a basic key.

And yeah, the entire game (including side stuff) is likely to take about 50 hours, divided into five chapters. As for "what kind of game"--mix together Shining Force, Suikoden, and Phantasy Star IV, then shake liberally, and you'll have the start of an idea. :-)

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Blublu]

That's your choice of course. I guess I'm glad not everyone is like you.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Nursie]

"But, frankly, if somebody thinks I'm an asshole for not wanting other people to avail themselves of utility from something I create without compensating me for my time and effort? I'm really OK with that."

The problem comes when it turns into a reputation and other people that would have bought it decide not to.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

Yes, it's a shame people actually like freedom and the choice of quid pro quo over the inherently bugfucked quodque pro quo of the GPL.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I strongly doubt that a creator's attitude toward pirates is going to affect many sales. And the implication by AmaDaden that treating pirates as the same as customers (which he as much as equates in his more recent post) is a good business practice makes me chuckle.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[EzInKy]

However, I'm big on the concept of a fair deal. I'm not going to put something out there to get screwed over. It's not part of my set of ethics. I'm OK with putting it into a safe-deposit box. I've already done the creative work, it's fine by me.

You really should consider the GPL. Being able to distribute millions of lines of other peoples code in exchange for few lines of your own is a really fantastic deal.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Plekto]

My suggestion was to not do annoying stuff like that but make it so that you NEED the manual to play the game. Or to include things like 3d glasses or keyboard overlays or a hint book to it to make it worth getting over just downloading the game itself.

I bought Far Cry 2 - but I honestly haven't read the manual or done the tutorial or anything. I just jumped in and was playing in 5 minutes. This makes it a prime candidate for pirating as there is nothing OF added value beyond the program itself.

edit:
I just looked at the manual - it's 14 pages long if you discount the pages of legalese and covers. It really wasn't worth bothering to read.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Lisandro]

A key system that does phone home--but does the validation on the user side. If the key's not legitimate, i.e. a keygen result, it won't be in the server database, though the game still unlocks. It doesn't change the game at all, but instead displays a message that more or less says only "I know this key isn't legitimate, but I'm going to let you play the game anyway."

Some old Shareware games did this back in the 80s-90s, though i wouldn't know with what degree of success.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Macthorpe]

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

I'm sorry, I'm OCD enough that I can't leave a quoting opportunity alone, even if it is better left unsaid ;)

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Keeper Of Keys]

What about if you think of them as potential customers? They're wandering around your store, they have the goods in their hands already! The analogy falls down here, of course, because you can't make them pay, but that is all the more reason to be nice to them.

So-called piracy is a lot about try-before-you-buy. Given the amount of "content" out there, this is not such a bad thing. We are so used to people having to buy things before they find out if they like them, that I don't think enough energy has yet been put into finding ways to get people to pay once they're sure they do.

Does anyone have any figures on how well nagware works? It's certainly worked on me a few times.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

The thing is, though--they've already taken it. A rational person who accepts as a postulate the right to take a good for free isn't going to pay for something they already have for free.

Quite literally--and I outright reject the "but it's just copying!" argument, so please don't even bother--they are taking my product without paying. I don't see any reason to expend any effort to help someone who has already stolen from me. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I think I'll almost certainly accept invalid keys, as from a keygen--but it'll say quite plainly that it's probably not a legally registered copy, you can authenticate again if it is or register without leaving the game by clicking a button, etcetera etcetera. I don't think nagware works terribly well, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

The "try it for free" argument also smells, too. Like I said, I fully intend a demo of about 20% of the game, approximately ten to twelve hours of content. If you can't decide based on that, I question whether it's not just "get it for free" time.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[JohnnyBGod]

The difference between stealing and copyright infrigement is the difference between losing money, and merely not gaining money, so I disagree with you on that part.

On the other hand, I feel for you, because there's no easy solution for that problem. If you have the time, you might try some sort of "creative" copy protection.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

My credo always was and is
"give it to us or we'll go play free software anyway"

Who cares about DRM when there are plenty free alternatives

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing the value of whose time? Not the developers, they develop the game wether he copies it or not. They aren't developing it for him, but for the paying customers.

They get exactly $0.00 from him, no matter if he just refuses to buy anything produced by EA, or if he refuses and then goes to the pirate bay.

Would you say I'm stealing the value of their time too? I would like to try spore, but I'm not going to pay for something that probably won't work anyway - i.e. DRM. From an EA accounting point of view, they get exactly the same from me, as they do from him. Not a cent more. The only difference is that I'm not downloading it from the pirate bay. You see, I already have more games than time (haven't even got around to install the Quake 4 demo yet, that I downloaded more than a year ago).

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think World of Goo is a special case. Those kind of physics based, essentially flash games are a lot lower down on the scale of things people spend money on. I would imagine that a significant percentage of those who "pirated" it didn't actively play it for that long before deciding it just wasn't worth money.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

FishWithAHammer, you're my hero.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

Your approach is "give it to us or we'll steal it." You know what my reply to that is? "Fuck you, I won't release it at all."

*MY* approach is "give it to me without any shenanigans, and I'll PAY you for it, or otherwise I won't pay you for it" (whether that means I'll copy it illicitly or not).

If you reply to that is "fuck you, I won't release it at all", then my reply to *THAT* is "fuck you, too, you need me more than I need you".

There's many more games I can play. More importantly, there's many more other things I can do. Do you honestly think that you're in a position of power when it comes to arguing with me?

I'm making you a fair offer: money for game. It's up to you to take it or leave it. Have you ever noticed that when I buy a book or a CD, I can lend, copy, resell, distribute etc. those without hassles, too, and that publishers still seem to make money? Maybe there's something wrong with YOU.

(And on a side note, creators don't deserve to make money in that sense. If nobody buys your game, tough luck: nobody ever guaranteed you that you'd be able to make money. You're entitled to people not copying your games etc. illegally, but you're not entitled to a profit no matter what.)

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

And then comes the pirate's whine "but it's not the whole game, I haven't gotten to see if I want to buy all of it."

I understand where you're coming from, but for commercial games at least, demos are usually painfully short or hopelessly distorted representations of what you'll actually get. I have NEVER bought a game based on a demo. I had always either decided to get it already and the demo was just gravy, or I've been put off by the demo, and surprisingly often found I *did* like the full game when I gave it a whirl from the bargain bucket.

Release a good sized demo which encompasses the real meat of the game rather than an intro stage or the showboat reel.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, some people don't have boolean belief systems. No, life is not easier when you have a fuzzy belief system.

Anything else?

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I think you need to realise that there are lot of people who read /. and aren't as noisy as some teenager who has never even had a job. After steam is DRM and yet most people here like it.

But having said that, I am getting sick of DVD not playing properly on my DVD player cus they want to protect their investment. The idea that I must have the CD/DVD in the computer to play the game is also irritating and quite unneeded. I have most of the ID series games (quake etc), and I have always been able to play without internet and without the CD in the computer if i want too. I won't touch steam, I don't like the stats collection, internet requirements and forced updates.

But as always its your game and you have the right to release it with whatever (almost) restrictions you want.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[calmofthestorm]

I have bought games after pirating them because I liked them so much, but generally only in cases where the game didn't offer a significant demo (most games have very little in it). I'd say if there's a big enough demo (like yours) and I still haven't bought it by the end I'm unlikely to do so (but then I'm also unlikely to pirate the full version)

Steam is nice because it finds a way to have DRM add value in addition to taking it away. If you have the account, you can play it on another computer. (Just /please/ don't make people be online any time they want to play, that's freakin' annoying on flights and trips and such)

I also suggest that you make a solemn guarantee to customers that having bought the game they will be able to play it forever. This is my single biggest deciding factor in allowing DRM.

That's not to say I completely agree with what you're doing here, but I think it's a decent compromise given the difficult position you're in.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[calmofthestorm]

Oh please. Quite a few of us who choose to make use of the GPL do so to /protect/ our work from what we consider to be exploitation. To me, if someone takes my code, integrates it directly into a product, and makes money from it, I've been exploited. Yet anyone who uses it, even for profit, in its form is not. The GPL protects me from exploitation, something like the BSD license does not.

This is of course my personal feeling. Like you, I care more about avoiding being exploited than profiting in any particular way, I just define it differently. So do the BSD communities, and other groups in the software world

To put it another way, think of the GPL community as like another company out there. If you work for a standard, primarily closed-source, company, you can probably use any code from that company in your product as you see fit, but you are adding more code to the company codebase with what you create.

I see GPL development as more or less equivalent to this. To accuse me of being selfish or of hoarding because I choose to require this contribution in kind for my work, yet not look at companies like Microsoft or Apple the same way, is simply hypocritical. I don't criticize Microsoft for not letting me steal the source code for some app of theirs and integrate it into mine. Who are they, then, to call my work "tainted" or "viral"?

I doubt that many GPL people see it this way, though, that is, the parity between GPL and any other company.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[calmofthestorm]

I do, however, contest the assertion that most gamers will pay for value. The games industry in particular is where piracy reigns. Perhaps gamers interested in indie gaming are different, but I kind of question it.

I'm well aware this doesn't apply to you, but consider to me that nearly all generic FPS games are the same and not really worth playing, let alone paying for.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

well, it's true, but it's the only datapoint we have in between free games and 60$ apiece ones.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[AmaDaden]

The thing is, though--they've already taken it. A rational person who accepts as a postulate the right to take a good for free isn't going to pay for something they already have for free.

Yes and most of those people will NEVER pay for it. But their friends will. I always pay for games but I have a few friends who never play for games. If they play a game that they say is good sometimes I go out and get it my self. Even if I don't buy it I remember it as having a good review from my friend and will keep that in mind if I see a sequel come out or if someone else talks about it.

I'm not arguing some kind of crazy hippie ideal of "just give it all away and it'll work out". You should do what you can to protect your stuff. Nag ware is not the worst thing in the world and a 20% demo is great. Just remember that the people who pirate the game are still people who are playing it. They are all reviewers with a small but very attentive audience. The goal is building a good name for your self not to be nice to pirates.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[steelcaress]

Easy. Package it with some unobtrusive DRM -- DRM that includes levels, monsters, critical files that make the game work. Maybe include a code that, when it hits the servers, downloads those critical files. Now, what if those critical files were maybe hooked to the unique IP address of the person registering the game, so that they won't work on someone else's machine when they download it as a torrent?

This can be done. I know it can be done. The how is up to the developer.

Additionally, make the manual available for purchase. Then, have random questions about the third word in the second paragraph of Section V, Subsection XXIV or some such. Piracy as "prevented" in the 80s.

And send a takedown note along to Replacementdocs.com so that they don't have a PDF version of your manual for download.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I would counter that if it is not worth buying, there's possible excuse could there be for pirating it - other than simply not wanting to pay. Let's call it what it is and move on.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

If you cared about not being exploited, you'd use the CDDL. It is a quid pro quo: changing your code requires releasing the changes back to you. The use of the GPL says something entirely different: you must surrender everything to use my GPL-licensed code, even a single line of it.

Unethical at best. Disgusting at worst.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

And yeah, the entire game (including side stuff) is likely to take about 50 hours, divided into five chapters. As for "what kind of game"--mix together Shining Force, Suikoden, and Phantasy Star IV, then shake liberally, and you'll have the start of an idea. :-)

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter ;) Seriously, any info/web site, or is it too early?

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[drinkypoo]

Your approach is "give it to us or we'll steal it." You know what my reply to that is? "Fuck you, I won't release it at all."

So instead of making what the market thinks you should make, you'll make nothing? That's okay, we didn't need your shitty, uninspired game anyway. I want to play games with a burning need to be made, not shitty rehashes.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't put much stock in demos. I already know that the developer polished the demo (or should have, if they have any sense) to a spit-shine before releasing it to the masses. Who wants to buy the full version of a buggy, boring demo? I've had "buyers remorse" before, and I don't like the feeling.

Your theory about people not paying money for something they already "stole" or could easily get for free doesn't hold much water with me. I and many of my friends tried Sins of a Solar Empire for a bit and later we all bought it. Why? Because we loved the game and (at least for me) because there was no DRM. Yes, I know a few people don't make a trend, but just realize there are people of all sorts of ilk out there. Laying down broad statements isn't going to help anything.

I am a firm believer that DRM hurts more than helps.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

I agree, a demo needs to be a worthwhile chunk of the game to be worthwhile. I like the old Spiderweb Software style of demo: Jeff Vogel generally gives away a full third to one-half of the game. His sales are pretty excellent, and it's unlikely that many of his players (long-time players) are pirating them. But he is a rare case.

I don't think commercial games aren't really applicable to the indie market, though.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

So don't buy it, and don't steal it. I don't see the problem here.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[Blublu]

I don't recall saying it was bad to have choices. You do have the freedom to choose any license you like. That is a good thing.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[FishWithAHammer]

Parsing error. Freedom as in not-what-the-GPL-provides, through the choice of an ethical license.

Re:To the extent that they lightened the DRM load:

[GreyyGuy]

If your response is going to be "fuck you, I won't release at all" then just stop now because that is the wrong attitude. No one- let me repeat that, NO ONE has ever- let me repeat that part too- EVER made something that could not be copied if someone wanted to. There are people that pirate the design of entire fucking CARS to make money. If you make something good, it will be pirated. It happens to software, books, car designs, artwork, sculpture, music, movies, TV shows, and just about everything else made by people smarter than you and I squared.

If you want a guarantee that it won't be pirated by some asshole then never release anything. That will show 'em, won't it. Give the world one less thing to pirate.

Or if you want to do something that is not based on fear, make a good product and release it. Maybe it will make you money, maybe it won't. Deciding to do nothing definitely won't. The question is will you act based on what you think you can do, or what you are afraid someone you've never met will do?

how much does DRM cost

[PhrostyMcByte]

I wonder how much these companies spend licensing and supporting DRM. Even leaving out sales lost because of DRM, I have a hard time imagining them making up those costs.

Re:how much does DRM cost

[goltzc]

I wonder how many companies that have spent a lot of money on DRM schemes are publicly traded. Investing in DRM sure seems like a proactive (yet pointless) way of making sure your investors believe that you are protecting your sales.

Perception of money saved > Actual money saved

Re:how much does DRM cost

[Shihar]

I am a pretty avid game buyer. I got out of college, got a job, and suddenly found tossing out a couple hundred on video games occasionally wasn't a large expense. If I see a game that I want, I generally just buy it.

I skipped over Red Alert 3 and Spore.

Those are two games that I normally would have not thought twice about buying. I like video games, and they are not such a big expense for me where I have to spend much time thinking about if I want to buy it or not, but in the case of those two games I took a pass because of DRM. I can merrily ignore DRM if it doesn't affect me. Limited licenses, crippling applications installed onto my computer, nice big loop holes for security breaches? Thanks. I'll pass. Video games are nice, but not worth crippling my computer or supporting that kind of anti-consumer behavior.

EA needed to be taught a lesson and hopefully they learned it. Spore had the most crippling DRM of all times and was the most pirated game of all times. Pssst... EA... DRM doesn't stop pirates. It sure does piss off people who on a normal day would hand you a sweat wad of cash without thinking twice.

Re:how much does DRM cost

[kill -9 $$]

Same boat over here. I have no problem paying for games (though I rarely buy them when they first come out). I believe whole heartedly in supporting creative software developers who put out useful/interesting/fun/etc software.

I do have a problem with the state of DRM. Consequently, I haven't even bothered to look at GTA IV or Red Alert 3 for me. In fact since that seems to the de facto standard on most PC games (or so it seems) I've just stopped buying PC games outright. It doesn't help that a lot of the games suck now either (FPS bore the hell out of me and that seems to be another trend).

Re:how much does DRM cost

[gbarules2999]

I've heard so many people saying this that I really hope it's starting to get noticed. Go on any PC Games blog or site and the minute DRM is mentioned, you have quite a few people saying, "Nah, I skip over DRM games." I'm with you - I skip them too.

It's not April 1st yet!!

[elrous0]

Well, maybe in some part of the world.

All aspects of securerom?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Does this also remove the other aspects of SecureROM, other than just 'number of installs?' Like the whole 'Hey, you have Nero installed! Therefore, you can't run this game! How dare you have standard computer equipment like a CD burner installed in your computer!'

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[CorporateSuit]

Does this also remove the other aspects of SecureROM, other than just 'number of installs?' Like the whole 'Hey, you have Nero installed! Therefore, you can't run this game! How dare you have standard computer equipment like a CD burner installed in your computer!'

This happens sometimes when I try to play Heroes of Might and Magic V! It's like playing russian roulette. "Will I get to play the game I paid for, today?" Made me decide to never pay for another DRM-touched piece of s[oftware] ever again. Ever.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Shakrai]

This happens sometimes when I try to play Heroes of Might and Magic V! It's like playing russian roulette.

Yeah, because not getting to play 'Heroes of Might and Magic V' is totally equivalent to a 16.667% chance of blowing your brains out ;)

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[ravenlock]

Actually, GP is correct in the sense that with HOMM, getting to play pretty much is equivalent to a bullet to the brain.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Anachragnome]

Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was my first experience with SecuROM. It disabled my CD burner...permanently. EA owes me $55 for that one.

In total, SecuROM has been the demise of three of my drives. There was no way to determine whether or not a game had it back then, so it was hit and miss. SecuROM, or EA, owe me approx. $150 for disabled drives over the last 12 years or so.

Since I NEVER expect to receive a buck from them in compensation, I protect my drives instead. I stopped BUYING THEIR GAMES. And every one that I bought in the past, I have since downloaded cracked versions and use them instead.

Is that what you wanted, EA?

Drop SecuROM, entirely, or you've still lost a customer.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because not getting to play 'Heroes of Might and Magic V' is totally equivalent to a 16.667% chance of blowing your brains out ;)

My revolver has five shots, you insensitive clod!

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Yvan256]

Or, if you're an idiot, a 100% chance of blowing your brains out.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[PoderOmega]

Do you use Process Explorer? Running Process Explorer and even after closing it triggered something in SecuROM that would prevent Heroes V from running. Newer versions of Process Explorer do not cause the issue though.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Does this also remove the other aspects of SecureROM, other than just 'number of installs?' Like the whole 'Hey, you have Nero installed! Therefore, you can't run this game! How dare you have standard computer equipment like a CD burner installed in your computer!'
>>>

If I bought software from EA that refused to run, I'd follow this procedure:

1 - Ask for a refund.
2 a - If they refuse to refund, I'd return an empty envelope with tracking.
2 b - File a credit card chargeback to screw them, like they screwed me out of 50 bucks.
3 - Take worthless POS game that refuses to run, and sell it on ebay for 30 bucks.
4 - ???
5 - Profit!

I use this same procedure with Ebay sellers who believe "as is" means they can sell you a non-working item and get away with it. I teach them that are mistaken.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Chris Burke]

LOL I thought it'd be some tard who forgot to empty N-1 chambers of the revolver... I never even imagined the kind of stupid where you'd play Russian Roulette with a semi-auto -- it's like the guy knew literally nothing about the game except that you shoot yourself in the head. The universe continues to amaze me!

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[hedwards]

Well, obviously, you haven't played the expansion which includes a "special controller."

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've become convinced that many of the Darwin rewards stories are fiction. In some years I've seen multiple top ten lists for the same year. Without a name, it's pretty hard to verify this story. Even if it's not fiction, we don't know the intent of the dead person, only what the witnesses claimed.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Chris Burke]

I'm certain that at least some of them are false, and thus I figure by extension many or even most are. The original one about the guy who crashed his car into a cliff after putting a JATO unit in the back of his car is definitely false -- though I've read at least one semi-plausible story that could be the source of the urban legend but didn't involve any death.

Still gives me a chuckle thinking that they might be true though.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[hplus]

Committing fraud is a great solution to your problems! Plus, you get the added benefit of screwing the merchant over, instead of the company responsible for the DRM. Also, if you buy an item "as is" and the seller hasn't specifically noted that it works, you have no room to complain when you receive a non-working item. That's what "as is" means. If the item is advertised as working but sold "as is," then you can legally/morally return the item to the seller and collect your refund from paypal/whoever. Taking your money back and keeping the item makes you at fault.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[IndustrialComplex]

Yeah, because not getting to play 'Heroes of Might and Magic V' is totally equivalent to a 16.667% chance of blowing your brains out ;)

16.667%? Real men use automatics.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody who plays the game right lives to tell the tale.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Kingrames]

*adjusts glasses* Your numbers fail to account for the chance of said gun malfunctioning due to poor maintenance.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Shakrai]

Your numbers fail to account for the chance of said gun malfunctioning due to poor maintenance.

That rarely happens with revolvers and when it does generally manifests in the cylinder failing to turn. If the cylinder doesn't turn I'd wager that you'd discard the gun as being unsuitable for Russian roulette and find another one ;)

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Shakrai]

You could play with an automatic. Just load the magazine up with a bunch of snap caps and one live round. If it goes click you have to rack the slide before handing it to the next guy ;)

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Committing fraud is a great solution to your problems!

Yes, yes it is. I consider vigilante justice to be acceptable when dealing with politicians (1776 revolt against the UK), with CEOs/corporations like the bastards at EA, or with dishonest Ebayers. The procedure I outlined is the only way to recover money when a corporation rips you off with a non-functioning videogame, and they refuse to refund the money.

>>>added benefit of screwing the merchant over, instead of the company responsible for the DRM.

I was actually discussing returning the game directly to EA, on the presumption that is who I bought the game from. I certainly wouldn't want to ripoff a merchant, if said merchant has not done anything wrong. And as for the "as is" deal, U.S. law still requires that a seller reveal all defects with an item (i.e. the screen is cracked, the hard drive is missing, or it doesn't turn on), especially in cases where the customer can not directly view the item, as is the case on Ebay. The customer makes a presumption of operability, and so too do the courts, and if the item is not working the seller has committed fraud and the courts will issue a full refund.

>>>Taking your money back and keeping the item makes you at fault.

If I returned a heavy item, say a laptop, and it costs me 20 dollars postage why should I be out the money? It was the seller who lied and claimed "Good condition" for a POS that doesn't even turn-on! I think I have every right to return an empty box to the jackass, get the refund from Paypal or Visa, and then sell the laptop as a "for parts only" item on Ebay to recover my wasted 20 bucks.

At the end of a bad deal, a customer should never be in the hole due to postage costs, and I consider a buyer has every right to "reverse scam" a seller/scam artist to recoup those costs.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Anachragnome]

Correction.

Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was NOT an Electronic Arts game, but it DID contain SecuROM, so the makers of SecuROM and New World Computing are the culprits here...at least for the FIRST bricked CD burner.

The other two were EA bricked by Command and Conquer or one of the subsequent sequels(not sure which, as I had them installed concurrently).

Regardless, SecuROM sucketh, even from a non-piratin' point of view(I had NEVER pirated a game back then...so why did my drives get bricked?).

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Kingrames]

On the contrary, I would make a KILLING off that gun.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[T Murphy]

I'm an optimist, so I round down to 16.666%

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[mark-t]

No... you may have every right to return the item, but not an empty box. You may even have a right to a refund, but committing fraud, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, puts you entirely in the wrong. If you doubt me, I'd dare you to tell your credit card company what you've said you do when you demand a refund on non-working stuff.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong way.

1. Get a full refund for the item either directly or via the CC.
2. Inform the seller, truthfully, that the item is packaged and ready for collection within the next 28 days. If they don't collect you can then legally dump it or sell it.
3. Invoicing them for a storage and/or disposal charge it completely optional.

The law is already on your side, use it.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Devistater]

It doesn't even do that. All this does is allow you to really uninstall now.

In other words, if you get say 3 installs from Spore, before, if you had to reinstall from a hdd wipe or because the install screwed up, each install could use up one of the 3 install activations. Then after those are used up, you have to call to be able to install the game you bought.

Now, when you uninstall, you run the deactivation tool to raise the allowed activations up by 1. So if you install, it goes to 2. Uninstall it stays at 2. Run de-activation tool, goes back to 3.

The tools change NOTHING about the securom other than letting you REALLY uninstall the game now.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Yeah, I figured all that out a bit later. I was wondering why the 'published after May 2008' thing, but then realized that that must be when the started the whole 'authorization required' bit.

VERY disappointing.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Psychochild]

Heroes of Might & Magic 3 was published by 3DO. I worked at 3DO at the time it was released.

I don't think they used SecuROM. The copy protection software at the time was SafeDisc. I remember that distinctly because one of my last few tasks at the company was to built the installer using SafeDisc on another project. 3DO was really cheap, so I don't think they would have licensed multiple copy protection systems.

Chipping in my two cents. I hate SecuROM as much as the next gamer/programmer, but I don't think the hate is properly directed in this case.

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Anachragnome]

Hrmm. I looked into it, and you're correct.

3DO didn't use SecuROM until Heroes V.

I DO know it was SecuROM that borked my drive though, as the registry entries were all there.

Now you have me wondering. Diablo 1? Trying to remember what all I had installed back then(not an easy task).

From my perspective, it is a moot point though. My point was that SecuROM was injuring my computers, and the ONLY defense against it was to either NOT purchase the game, or pirate it.
Exactly what the developers wanted, no?

Re:All aspects of securerom?

[Psychochild]

3DO didn't use SecuROM until Heroes V.

Just to be truly pedantic, Heroes V was done by Ubisoft. They bought the rights to Might & Magic from a bankrupt 3DO.

From my perspective, it is a moot point though.

It's something I remembered, having worked at 3DO at the time and having to deal with the copy protection. Ironically, it was for a game that nobody would have wanted to pirate anyway; that's what happens when you finish what is supposed to be a AAA PC game in only 6 months.

As a developer, I'm not fond of copy protection/DRM schemes either. I use Daemon Tools for checking CD images I've made for my game; it sucks that some DRM thinks I'm a dirty pirate just because I have that installed.

My thoughts,

Had to return Battlefield expansion packs

[syousef]

I have had to return two of the Battlefield expansion packs because I could not activate them even after spending several hours on the problem. No matter what I did the online part of the process did not work and I was denied access. These expansion packs were online only so I effectively couldn't use the software at all. Fortunately I bought from a gaming shop that does take returns on games that do not work. I wrote to EA, asked for help. Then again to revoke whatever I'd registered. No reply of course. One day these greedy fools will realize that they're shooting themselves in the foot with DRM. Sure some piracy will be curtailed in some circumstances. So will some legitimate use. In the long run they lose out because the game becomes hard to use and not worth the effort.

Re:Had to return Battlefield expansion packs

[peragrin]

EA probably realized that a significant percentage of customer service calls and returns were for problems with securROM. By dropping it all together they are saving money on development costs, and call center calls

Re:Had to return Battlefield expansion packs

[DarthVain]

Its not so much that they are greedy (well they are, but that is beside the point), it is that they are misinformed and unrealistic.

1st hardly any of these folks develop their own DRM, there is a whole industry out there preying on the fears of developers. They (and their consultants) will tell them whatever they want to hear to sell their own garbage.

2nd they really just went a bit too far. DRM has been around since the beginning of video games, and so has trying to get around it and pirating software and games. This is NOT new. What they forgot is that DRM only has to be strong enough to keep the honest people honest. The idea that you can "stop" piracy, or copying games and software is ludicrous. The sooner they realize this the better. Make it transparent and easy, and your mainstream customers can't be bothered. You will always have those on the fringe that will do it no matter what. Also they must take into their fiscal consideration the fact (like the music industry is having a hard time understanding), that just because some one pirated your stuff doesn't mean that is a lost sale as they may not have bought it no matter what anyway....

Anyway some DRM is fine so long as you don't go overboard is the bottom line. You just have to make it somewhat a pain in the ass to copy without effecting your normal users.

Re:Had to return Battlefield expansion packs

[DarthVain]

A good simple example of this was the old code wheels you got is some games. Basically a code word based on the manual from two cardboard disks.

Sure you could photocopy the stupid manual, and make a cardboard wheel, and I am sure some did. However it was just damn easier to buy the damn game.

Also I think a basic truth is that the lower the cost of the item the less it will be worthwhile to pirate. It has already been pointed out that games are way over priced and that a correction needs to occur. They would likely do a lot for selling more and market penetration as well as growing the industry as well if they were not so short sighted for short term profits.

Re:Had to return Battlefield expansion packs

[sponga]

It most likely wasn't DRM, but rather you did not assign the right EA account name. Speaking as a long time Battlfield veteran there was a fiasco about this, although I don't remember any posts complaining about DRM.

A lot of misconception about this went on and it really had nothing to do with DRM, when really it was EA's system of tying the username together.

You should have asked on the EA Battlfield forums and I am sure some nice folks would have helped you with it, the forums are a good place to get a quicker answer than from EA's ticket system of question. You basically have to go into your EA account and assign your other account names with that main one.

Once again I doubt this problem has anything to do with the DRM system in place, you might have been in a little bit of a rush to assign this problem to DRM. Any decent PC Gaming forum could have probably told you all this, but seeing as this is /. people are quick to tie a programs problem and instantly assign DRM to it.

Sorry to hear about your problem and you missed out on one of the best expansion packs for that game, they have those BF2 all in one packages at FRY's for pretty damn cheap now for about $25 you get the mega pack.

Re:Had to return Battlefield expansion packs

[syousef]

It most likely wasn't DRM, but rather you did not assign the right EA account name. Speaking as a long time Battlfield veteran there was a fiasco about this, although I don't remember any posts complaining about DRM.

How is restriction by account name not DRM? Do you understand what DRM means?

A lot of misconception about this went on and it really had nothing to do with DRM, when really it was EA's system of tying the username together. ...which is DRM.

You should have asked on the EA Battlfield forums and I am sure some nice folks would have helped you with it, the forums are a good place to get a quicker answer than from EA's ticket system of question. You basically have to go into your EA account and assign your other account names with that main one.

No. I should have done no such thing. There should never have been a system that prevented me from using the game I'd paid for. Blaming the end user for not jumping through hoops and consulting online forums is pure garbage - the exact sort of permissive and apologetic attitude that leads to CRAP SOFTWARE and CRAP DRM like this. I shouldn't have to spend hours on it, and I wanted to return the game in time to get a refund instead of jackass excuse. I also haven't bought an EA game since. I did exactly what I should. If they want to fuck with DRM, waste my time and make their software unusable I should not be giving them my hard earned money.

Once again I doubt this problem has anything to do with the DRM system in place, you might have been in a little bit of a rush to assign this problem to DRM. Any decent PC Gaming forum could have probably told you all this, but seeing as this is /. people are quick to tie a programs problem and instantly assign DRM to it.

No. Once again you're in a rush to describe anything that isn't a CD copy protection scheme as being something other than DRM. Let me spell it out for you. DRM = Digital Rights Management. Digital = They used software to do it. Rights = They did not allow me to play the game online. Managment = The act of preventing me. In other words ANY software that is used to control or restrict the use of other software (or of itself) is DRM.

Sorry to hear about your problem and you missed out on one of the best expansion packs for that game, they have those BF2 all in one packages at FRY's for pretty damn cheap now for about $25 you get the mega pack.

I bought the original booster packs. You can bet I'm not going to touch the games again. I own BF2 and Special Ops but I'm not touching the multiplayer DRM infested packs ever again. They can keep them. I'd rather go without games altogether than support that bullshit.

Re:Had to return Battlefield expansion packs

[sponga]

Well you should go start a thread labled 'DRM prevented me from playing Battlefield expansion packs' on the EA Battlefield forums, if you seem so determined it was DRM and not the way the EA account system server works to keep online multiplayer stats available.
Watch how quickly you get shot down and get a dose of technically explained reason, just use the 'search' function and while at it put in "DRM" to see some of the silly arguments get shot down by civilized explanations.

I saw this whole fiasco go on in the forums there and there wasn't really anyone person who said "DRM caused it".
There is no "digital" software installed that prevents you from playig it; it is their online servers that deal with the associating(DRM?) the expansion with your orginal BF2 for online stats.
What? you don't like multiplayer games with stats; gee sorry to burst your bubble but thats the way online PC gaming has been going.

Where have you been in the PC Gaming history? This type of scenario plays out all time with expansion packs and booster packs.

Now if you want to talk about 'real DRM' than we can; such as their limit of installing it on 5 same computers which can easily be fixed by calling them. Although there is no reason to run 5 exact copies at the same time online.
You are just confused that because it didn't install right online it must be the DRM when in fact it was 'human error' or just a sloppy login interface of instruction at EA's website when associating it.
SecureROM is another form of 'real DRM'

The word 'associate' is different meaning from 'DRM'

Re:Had to return Battlefield expansion packs

[syousef]

Well you should go start a thread labled 'DRM prevented me from playing Battlefield expansion packs' on the EA Battlefield forums, if you seem so determined it was DRM and not the way the EA account system server works to keep online multiplayer stats available.

Please explain to me the distinction you are drawing between your very narrow definition of DRM and "the way the EA account system server works". The bottom line is I was prevented from using the game.

I saw this whole fiasco go on in the forums there and there wasn't really anyone person who said "DRM caused it".

So now I'm suppose to limit myself to use terminology according to a forum I don't frequent? That's absurd.

There is no "digital" software installed that prevents you from playig it; it is their online servers that deal with the associating(DRM?) the expansion with your orginal BF2 for online stats.

If a restriction prevents me from using the game the technicality of why the restriction is in place doesn't matter. It is still DRM.

What? you don't like multiplayer games with stats; gee sorry to burst your bubble but thats the way online PC gaming has been going.

Nice straw man there. I don't care about stats. I have nothing against them. They may well improve the game. I guess I'll never know will I? I was unable to use the game. I certainly do care about being able to use the game I paid for.

Where have you been in the PC Gaming history? This type of scenario plays out all time with expansion packs and booster packs.

Yes and I've returned a few games I haven't been able to use, or that impose stupid restrictions (like not allowing me to use an emulated CD/DVD ROM). You find this sort of thing acceptable? Have you noticed that PC gaming is dying? Here's one key reason for that. It's too much of a hassle. You spend so much time jumping through hoops so that you're permitted to use the game. On a console there's no such nonsense.

Now if you want to talk about 'real DRM' than we can; such as their limit of installing it on 5 same computers which can easily be fixed by calling them. Although there is no reason to run 5 exact copies at the same time online.
You are just confused that because it didn't install right online it must be the DRM when in fact it was 'human error' or just a sloppy login interface of instruction at EA's website when associating it.

For pity sake man. This is real DRM we are talking about. It's just another kind of DRM. It prevented me from using the system. Your argument appears to be that it's just a bug. However since it is a bug to do with software designed to restrict access, it very clearly falls under the blanket of a DRM bug.

SecureROM is another form of 'real DRM'

SecureROM is a very specific type of DRM.

Tying online accounts and serial number which are verified to a game is also a form of DRM.

You're way too hung up on the definition to understand that people just don't care what the technical definition is. If a game has restrictions that make it unusable it's just useless junk no matter how good the content. Label it DRM. Label it account restriction. Label it game stats tracking. Hell label it a purple people eater. It still makes it useless.

Hm...

[grub]

Once downloaded, the tool will search your drives for EA games infested with the draconian online DRM system

I bet that's not a quote from EA's documentation.

Re:Hm...

[SnarfQuest]

Once downloaded, the tool will search your drives for EA games infested with the draconian online DRM system

I bet that's not a quote from EA's documentation.

When you're an evil overload, you need to gloat and laugh maniacally about something.

Re:Hm...

[nightstar007]

Do I really want EA freely searching my hard drive.. haven't they done enough.

Re:Hm...

[Kadagan AU]

You should see the DRM that the tool uses! Makes me miss SecuROM!

Cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

We can have congress pass legislation that they didn't read to fix the problem of EULAs that nobody reads.

Re:Cool...

[commodore64_love]

This isn't funny.

It's sad.

Re:Cool...

[omnipresentbob]

It is sad. Which is why there should be legislation that makes them read the bills.

http://www.downsizedc.org/page/read_the_laws

Re:Cool...

[commodore64_love]

The First Congress spent almost six months writing, debating, and rewriting the Bill of Rights, and it was only one page long. Our Congress passed a 780,000 million dollar stimulus bill with thousands of pages and most never read it.

When the Founders envisioned the Congress, they pictured a body of men who would be highly-intelligent, logical (it was the Age of Reason), and careful in their deliberations, to carefully read every word and weigh its effects.

Boy were they wrong.

Re:Cool...

[whoop]

Reading will just slow things down, we need to act fast, dammit! Just vote yes, whatever it is.

Or else...

Re:Cool...

[cffrost]

It is sad. Which is why there should be legislation that makes them read the bills.

Just use the a gimmick similar to that employed in one notable EULA: Offer legislators coupon-codes redeemable for free girls, cocaine and cash prizes, randomly embedded in each printed copy of every bill. A fixed count or dollar-value per bill would encourage concise bills, encouraging examination by both legislators and constituents.

Re:Cool...

[MemoryDragon]

Age of Reason, followed by Age of Stupidity and Laywers...

Re:Cool...

[brkello]

+5 sad?

One day....

[Daetrin]

One day these greedy fools will realize that they're shooting themselves in the foot with DRM.

They removed the DRM from Sims 3 and just released a tool to retroactively remove DRM from older games. One could make a reasonably cogent argument that that day is today.

(Good thing that day wasn't tomorrow, or no one would have believed them.)

Re:One day....

[Red Flayer]

and just released a tool to retroactively remove DRM from older games.

No they didn't. In essence, they released a tool to reset your "activated" flag from TRUE to FALSE.

So when you try to install and activate on a second machine, you can -- as long as you have unactivated on the first machine. This is nice, since it allows for continuance of the doctrine of first sale. This is not nice, as it still leaves the DRM.

All this does is make their DRM adhere to certain consumer protection laws.

Also note that they have not committed to release Sims 3 DRM-free; instead, they have vowed not to use the broken DRM tool they have been using up til now.

Re:One day....

[Sowelu]

No, they didn't remove the DRM. They just eased ridiculous restrictions saying that if you install on a system, then get a new machine, and repeat that three times, you can't install on a new machine any more. Now you can reverse that countdown a little bit, if you actively uninstall the game. You're still hosed if your drive dies, because then you can't get credit back.

Re:One day....

[Anonymous Coward]

This tool does not rectroactively remove DRM from any games. All it does is tell their DRM servers that you want to release the activation from "this" PC so you can use it on another. It's basically the same as calling their tech support and doing it over the phone.

Re:One day....

[7 digits]

> They removed the DRM from Sims 3 and just released a tool to retroactively remove DRM from older games.

Uh ? Did you actually _read_ the article ? They offer you a tool to deactivate *computers*, so you can install the game again. They didn't removed DRM.

PS: I bought one game with SecuROM. I will never ever buy any game with DRM.

Re:One day....

[commodore64_love]

>>>just released a tool to retroactively remove DRM from older games

Reading comprehension is not your forte' is it? EA did no such thing. They released a *assistant* to deactivate existing installs, but the DRM is still there causing problems, either now or in the future.

Re:One day....

[gbarules2999]

The Sims 3 thing wasn't out of goodwill, though. They did it to cover their asses, because if the casual market got a whiff of what was on Spore, there would be blood in the streets, with little green diamonds floating in it. I'll believe their wonderful change of heart when the next Battlefield game comes without that crap.

Re:One day....

[Daetrin]

Nope! I was at work so the article itself was blocked be websense (i have no idea why Slashdot itself isn't blocked. I've never asked because they might "fix" it.)

Besides! This is Slashdot! No one ever reads TFA! :)

Too bad it's not as progressive as the blurb made it sound =/ Still at least a step in the right direction though.

Re:One day....

[Daetrin]

"Once downloaded, the tool will search your drives for EA games infested with the draconian online DRM system, and help you download their respective individual de-activation tools."

Well it sounded like the DRM was effectively being removed to me (that is until i got home and got the chance to RTFA, which phrases it rather differently) but don't let an honest difference in interpretation stop you from throwing out random insults!

Re:One day....

[7 digits]

> Besides! This is Slashdot! No one ever reads TFA! :)

Fair enough. I concur that if people start reading articles, /. won't be /. anymore.

Congrats for you +5 score, thought. Moderators don't read articles either, anyway...

Too late EA, you already taught me to pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late EA.
Thanks to your Draconian DRM, I learned how and where to get pirated versions of the games I'd like to play.
I found out that these pirated copies are easier to get (download), work better (no DRM F'ing up my PC), and cost less.
I know pirating games is morally wrong, but so is your DRM. So, I am behaving in a morally equivalent manner to you.

Thanks EA for teaching me these things.

Now that you have nice new anti-DRM tools, I can safely not care as you have shown me a better way to do things.

Disclaimer:
I really don't have time to play games anymore.
It was a game in 2002 that taught me the above lessons, back when I had time. The crack played better than the DRM'd original. Especially at release.
But the concept holds true. EA slits their own throat by either (a) causing people to not buy their games, or (b) irritating people enough to become acquainted with the pirating culture.

What about other and older games?

[antdude]

I remember C&C3: Kane's Wrath patch had SecureROM that caused people (including mine)'s explorer.exe to go bonker and crash. See http://www.google.com/search?q=kane's+wrath+explorer.exe+securom ... :)

Re:What about other and older games?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Same thing happened with the Mass Effect patch for the PC. Vista's explorer would crash when I tried to do any operation on on an executable except start it.
Right click -> crash
Press delete -> crash
Ctrl+C -> crash

Took me hours to figure out it was caused by the Mass Effect patch.

Re:What about other and older games?

[antdude]

Did that issue ever get fixed? Lame DRM!

This is just a deauth tool

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so this lets me say I don't want it on a computer I still have access to right now. I lost a win xp box a couple weeks ago to a continuous reboot cycle I couldn't escape. I switched to linux and VMWare at that point. I won't be able to deactivate anything I had installed. I had to "deauthorize all computers" in iTunes for the whole year. When they released the spore tool, I took to deathorizing after the few times I made the mistake of playing, so at least I didn't have to worry about that one. When will they just give up on DRM of this kind all together? This tool just isn't all that helpful.

Hulk mad.

[commodore64_love]

>>>it's still possible to run out of activations in the event of hardware failure or other source of data loss

Hulk crush EA's company cars. Grrrr.

This does NOT remove the DRM, just moves the game!

[Sowelu]

Many of EA's games can only be installed three times on different computers (based on hardware ID codes)--and then, even if you never gave away your CD key or anything else, you don't get to install them ANYWHERE. Serious problem if you get three new computers! This tool lets you de-authorize a computer, saying "I don't want to play the game on THIS computer any more. Credit me with the ability to install it on a new place again." Of course that doesn't help if your hard drive dies; that one ability to install it dies with your drive, and you can't take it back. The DRM is still very present.

Re:This does NOT remove the DRM, just moves the ga

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh...that just means they'll lube ya before the they have the robots anal probe ya...

DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a fan of copyrights or patents. Trade secrets and trademarks should be king. If they want to DRM it up, no prob, but it should be my legal right to try to circumvent it. Just like if someone figures out the secret recipe to coca cola, it's game over.

Does it need activation?

[Nahor]

I didn't RTFA but do I need to activate the tool before I can use it? If so, can it deactivate itself once I'm done with it?

I don't understand

[lancert]

I've never understood people's belief that they have the right to someone else's work be it music, videos, games, software or whatever. Calling EA an evil overlord for trying to profit from their work and protect it from being stolen is totally goofy. If you don't want to pay for it, you shouldn't have it. I'm sure people are going to trash this statement but if you don't like the DRM they install with it, don't buy it. But stealing a copy of something because you don't like the DRM is theft. Plain and simple.

Re:I don't understand

[spyrochaete]

DRM that limits the number of times you can install a game you own is theft.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obviously NOT theft. That's plain and simple enough. It's copyright infringement.

I doubt you'd like it if your local newspaper ran a story "lancert Murders Six!" every time you j-walked.

Also, there is a justifiable point to the pirates side: whether he pirates or not, there is no effect on the creator if he wasn't going to buy the product in the first place.

It seems like you'd get all up in arms if poor kids living in grass huts in Africa got to listen to music for free. What does it matter if they get to listen to it? They physically and economically could not have purchased the music no matter what.

Re:I don't understand

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I've never understood people's belief that they have the right to someone else's work be it music, videos, games, software or whatever. Calling EA an evil overlord for trying to profit from their work and protect it from being stolen is totally goofy. If you don't want to pay for it, you shouldn't have it. I'm sure people are going to trash this statement but if you don't like the DRM they install with it, don't buy it. But stealing a copy of something because you don't like the DRM is theft. Plain and simple.

Upon careful reflection you'll find the answer was within the whole time!

Re:I don't understand

[Culture20]

If EA doesn't want me to resell my copy of $GAME, they can open up a video arcade so that I can't sell $GAME after I've played it. I bought it, it's mine, and I should be able to sell it.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is arguing that downloading a copy of a DRM game is not stealing. We all know that it is wrong. We will not buy the game because it is over priced and has drm that does not let me give it to some one else when I am finished. However this is more of an entitlement situation as if we chained ourselves to our house because we can no longer pay for it. I am insisting on still using the house even though I have not paid for it.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to "steal a copy" of something digital, is to take a physical copy from the store and not pay for it. Copyright infringement in itself is never stealing, and you really gotta stop using that argument if you want to get anywhere.

But that said, even if I wasn't a student with no income, I'd always go for the more user friendly version. And that's never the one loaded with DRM.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've never understood people's belief that they have the right to someone else's work."

I never understood game companies' beliefs that they have the right to completely fuck with someone else's computer from the inside out, restrict first sale trade options, and create profit margins through litigation.

It's a funny old world, ain't it.

Re:I don't understand

[spire3661]

Ive never understood people's belief that companies can ignore basic rights of trade.

Re:I don't understand

[gbarules2999]

If the DRM worked 100% of the time you'd have an argument. But it doesn't, so you don't.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not theft if you paid for a copy and then used a DRM cracked version.

Anti-DRM isn't people trying to not pay for it, it's people that have bought a game and want it to work on their machine and transfer it to future machines they may own. They're trying to assert their rights, as much as you argue E.A. are trying to assert theirs.

(And, yes, bought the game. Save me from the lawyer nonsense about 'buying a license' - as far as people care, they are buying the game and expect it to work. Just Like A Book.)

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you got modded funny which may be appropriate...however, assuming you really do have some confusion in your mind, let me explain my point of view on this.
If I have bought a copy of something, be it game, movie, or music CD, I do see myself as having some rights to it...specificly the right to actually use my copy. Now there are potentially some uncertainties, like is the license I have tied to the life of the actual media, which with vinyl records or casette tapes could be quite short, or do I have an open ended license, eg so long as I can prove I did buy the thing, am I entitled to use my copy forever?

Now if DRM schemes worked "perfectly" then I would expect to be able to buy the game, then keep using it indefinitely, including upgrading my machine, replacing faulty hard drives, and so on. Anyone who has read much about this stuff will know that this is not how it works out in practice. My sons buy their own stuff now, but when I was buying games, at that stage on floppies usually with copy protection, my practice was to buy the game, then go and get a cracked copy from my friendly local pirate so that if (when) the original disk died we would still be able to run. Now I don't actually see anything morally wrong with that. Note that with non copy protected software I would do much the same thing, except that the copy would of course be made locally straight frrom the distribution media. It would of course be wrong for me to start distributing copies, and you could argue that my friendly local pirate should not have been providing me with copies, but the reality of things was that for me to reliably get what I had actually paid for it was necessary for me to do that.

Personally I think that the purchase of a game should include a license to use the software on one machine until the copyright expires or the software is released into the public domain. The onus should then be on the publisher to support that, eg by reasonably priced media replacements until that time. Once they no longer want to support it, the software should be released into the public domain, without any DRM of course.

Re:I don't understand

[Mr2001]

I've never understood people's belief that they have the right to someone else's work be it music, videos, games, software or whatever. [...] If you don't want to pay for it, you shouldn't have it.

And I've never understood people's belief that they have the right to tell someone else which sequences of bits they can or can't send and receive over the internet. If you don't want me to use my internet connection for the purposes I choose, you should start paying my cable bill; as long as I'm paying the bills, I should be the one to make the decisions.

I guess that makes us even.

Re:I don't understand

[archammer2]

I don't have the right to other people's work without paying. I just expect that when I drop $70 for a game (sprcifically, Spore and the Creepy & Cute parts pack), I expect it to actually run when I install it without having to contact EA's support team and still be forced to shut down certain applications and processes for the game to even start. Pardon me for not wanting to be treated like a criminal when I actually pay for a game.

Apparently, Spore and SecuROM don't like Microsoft's own ctfmon.exe.

Obviously

[dazedNconfuzed]

What you don't understand is that EA's DRM was screwing up computers of people who DID pay!

Whence other DRM-free EA games?

[dazedNconfuzed]

So when can I buy a copy of Spore with the assurance it does NOT have SecuROM onboard?

Re:Whence other DRM-free EA games?

[Nobody Real]

If you buy it through Steam, you don't get stuck with SecuROM. You do have to deal with Steam's internal DRM though. If you want to play without DRM, your only choice is to pirate it.

Re:Whence other DRM-free EA games?

[gbarules2999]

The Pirate Bay.

Tool doesn't actually work (for me)

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is wishful thinking on someone's part, that this would actually function without issues. First, it tells me that I have 3 activations (2 remaining) for Crysis Warhead. Well, this isn't actually possible, as I have only 2 PCs and I bought the game brand-new, off the shelf. So even if I were able to deactivate my computers, there is still one phantom authorization somewhere. Some keygen or lucky guess is out there, perhaps.

Secondly, the game-specific tool errors out with an ambiguous message indicating the game needs to be reinstalled. The tool apparently requires a full installation of the game before deactivation; if you've already uninstalled it, you have to reinstall to deactivate it. Huh?

Not to mention that you *may* not have access to (or room upon) the old system any longer.

What fun! This is what DRM is *all* about!

Spore deauth tool stinks

[spyrochaete]

I uninstalled Spore a few weeks ago and just tried to reclaim the activation with EA's new tool. All I get is this message:

Important Message!

There is a problem with verifying ownership of your game. Please verify your game registration code and reinstall your game."

What the hell does that mean? I have to install the game again? So do I run the deauth tool while it's still installed? And then uninstall it again?

Screw this. If my game ceases to work I'll just pirate it.

Re:Spore deauth tool stinks

[kyjl]

Death Tools kill, not stink.

Old School DRM is the Best School

[Bigjeff5]

I recently installed some industrial software who's installation/licensing scheme struck me as incredibly brilliant.

They don't care how many machines you have, or even how many machines you install the software on. What they care about is that you are only ever using one instance of the software at a time, because that is the license you payed for.

To accomplish this, they use a 2-part licensing scheme that is based on an original license authorization, and a randomly generated key created upon installation. To transfer the authorization, you have to have the key generated by the software on the computer you want to transfer to first, then you can use it to generate a NEW authorization on the old machine. Generating a new authorization re-creates the original machine's key, breaking the authorization there, so a new transfer is required in order to use it again.

You can move it around all you want, you can even operate off of two machines if you want, you just have to re-authorize it each time. Also, because it's just a standard licensing scheme and not some crazy copy protection, it doesn't break any functionality.

Most people would find this reasonable, I think, and sure it's breakable, but the market for such a crack should be reduced, and if done well that's a hard system to circumvent. I think so anyway, I could be wrong.

Re:Old School DRM is the Best School

[david_thornley]

I don't understand this. How does installing on a second machine break authorization on the first? Either you'd need the first machine available to authorize the second, or you'd have to be connected to the net every time you started the program. Otherwise, there's no way to stop somebody from taking the first computer, putting it somewhere without a net connection, and using the software while it's authorized on the second machine.

The first alternative suggests that you're SOL if the first machine breaks too badly, or is stolen, or otherwise lost. The second assumes that the software will never be used without a net connection. This may be acceptable for industrial software (although it's quite possible for only the internet access to be down, nothing else), but it's a very bad assumption for consumer software. If I load a game on my laptop to go to the cabin, and when I get there I can't play it, I'm going to be upset.

It also suggests that there's no way to lock down a machine for the software: somebody could accidentally break your authorization. In a large business, there will be checks and procedures to stop this, but that's not the case for consumer software.

If you're selling software for $100K or so, you can provide plenty of help to offset any inconvenience. If you're selling for $39.99 in stores, one customer with a difficult authorization problem is either an angry ex-customer, or a way to blow the profits on several sales.

There's also the fact that DRM won't stop a determined cracker, and so you can expect cracked copies of any popular program to show up on TPB real fast.

The reality is that DRM won't stop software from being distributed without authorization on a very large basis, and it has the potential to mess up the paying customer. It has not worked in general, and it isn't going to work now.

Re:Old School DRM is the Best School

[c0d3g33k]

Most people would find this reasonable.

Nope. It's just as damned inconvenient and braindead as other schemes that artificially induce limitations that aren't there to begin with. One instance at a time is just as stupid as any other limitation.

Example:

Limited software in question is installed on 3 computers: Workstation at the office, laptop and home workstation.

Scenario 1: Working on project at office workstation. Suddenly called to important meeting with important executive to deal with an important issue. Grab laptop, head off to meeting - no time to logoff, generate new key, whatever. Productive discussion ensues. Executive asks for a quick review of discussion concepts using expensive software he paid for. Activate laptop, start software. Bzzzt! Didn't generate stupid license key, so no efficient conclusion to discussion. Executive leaves meeting with mandate to find new tool ASAP without stupid licensing scheme.

Scenario 2: Good week at office. Project done, system deployed. Vacation next week. No need to generate key - won't need it. As vacation starts - emergency phone call to fix unforeseen issue. Bzzt! Sorry - can't use home system to fix problem. Long drive into office causes family to miss plane, vacation ruined, divorce ensues. Solemn vow never to use stupid software again.

Scenario 3: Good week at office. Project done, system deployed. Generate key for laptop just in case - not stupid like scenario 2 guy. Sunday morning - emergency call. No problem - just fire up laptop, install key, fix problem. Bzzzt! Hard drive failure - laptop won't boot. Home system can't use exclusive key made for laptop. Stupid licensing scheme cursed forever, new tool found.

The problem with schemes that impose limitations is that they are ... limiting, and at some point those limitations will cause a problem that shouldn't have been one.

Only human beings would invent technology that removes limitations (like cost-free digital reproduction that sounded like Utopia in the sci-fi novels ... and the marketing copy) then turn around and impose artificial limitations to nullify the benefit that the new tech offered.

Re:Old School DRM is the Best School

[El_Oscuro]

I once wrote a shareware app. The shareware version just had a nag screen when you started the program and some minor functionality disabled. If you registered my program, you got a registration code which you entered along with your name. All the code was a simple hash of the name that resulted in about 5 or 6 digits (no 42 digit hex numbers here). When registering, the program would store the name and checksum in its .INI file.

I didn't care how many computers you installed on, or even how many people were using it concurrently. In fact, you could just copy the .INI file to another computer and it would work just fine. I think my help file even had instructions for doing just this.

All of this was trivially hackable, and there was nothing preventing someone from distributing the program with an already registered .INI file. The trick was, the name and checksum "branded" your copy. All of the window titles included your name in them, so if you redistributed it, the "registered" copies would also have your name in them.

This actually worked pretty well. I got plenty of registrations, even though the registration process was only check or money order and snail-mail (before the internet thingie was invented by Al Gore)

It still works. The best selling game of all time, Doom2, was released with no DRM. JP Software has been selling replacement Windows shells for 15 years using the same branding method. And you can download the latest enterprise edition of Oracle for any platform without any restrictions whatsoever. And Oracle isn't cheap.

Whenever I recommend software to clients, any crappy licensing DRM scheme that I might have to deal with later results in automatic disqualification.

Re:Old School DRM is the Best School

[HiThere]

That's the wrong old school. The one you should be looking at is the dongle.

A usb stub (pass-though, so you can just leave it installed and still use the port) would probably be acceptable to most people. It could be pretty cheap and not draw a noticeable amount of power. It would be like requiring the CD, but less inconvenient to use and harder to duplicate.

I'll admit I hated the dongles, but not so much that I tended to boycott products. DRM as it exists is something that causes me to just avoid buying things. But it damned well better not get the reputation of either being fragile or causing systems to break, or I'll avoid it, just as I avoid DRM.

Re:Old School DRM is the Best School

[iamnothere900]

If the hard drive dies, yes you are screwed. No argument there. But it doesn't matter because that's what you paid for.

It sounds like you don't get it, because in the GP's post he said they purchased one license for one installed copy. That means you get one installed copy, and no more. If you really need this software on three computers, you have to buy three copies/licenses. If the company offers a "as many simultaneous installations as you want" license, that may be better for your 3 computer scenario; if they only offer "one installation" licenses, maybe you shouldn't buy that product.

For example, Mac OS X upgrade retail boxes come in two versions: single user and family pack (up to 5 computers). Just because they have the same DVDs and there is no authentication check doesn't mean its legally/morally OK to buy the single user box and install it on every computer you have.

Re:Old School DRM is the Best School

[c0d3g33k]

No, *you* didn't get it. The GP's post describes a scheme requiring a single instance at a time. You're describing an even more antiquated and braindead scheme from the days when laptops or telecommuting didn't exist. That's like requiring a book to be read in only one room because at the time of publication everyone lived in single-room log cabins.

And yeah, "if you don't like the license, don't buy the product" is exactly why these schemes died out for the most part. People didn't like them and they didn't buy, particularly if a competitive product was available.

Re:Old School DRM is the Best School

[Mr2001]

No, no, no.

It's one thing to use dongles for expensive business apps that are typically run on dedicated workstations (CAD, etc.). But it's something else to use them for games - a typical gaming PC might have a dozen or more games installed on it. If you install a USB dongle for each one, not only are the power requirements going to add up, but you're going to look ridiculous with a two-foot-long chain of dongles hanging off your PC.

Re:Old School DRM is the Best School

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution:

1) Buy another copy
2) VNC/Remote desktop into computer that contains the software you wish to use for the demo/fix/etc.

You are wrong

[Brain-Fu]

But stealing a copy of something because you don't like the DRM is theft. Plain and simple.

Legally speaking, it is not theft. Copyright infringement is an entirely different legal concept than theft. So you are wrong.

Morally speaking, you are wrong too. Theft deprives the owner of use, whereas copyright infringement does not. So it is not morally similar to theft (it might still be wrong of course, just as murder is wrong even though it is not theft, but this does not make it the same thing as theft).

I know you think I am splitting semantic hairs. Of course, I disagree. I think your sloppy use of language obscures the truth and frustrates our efforts at thinking clearly about this issue. It is not "plain and simple," and your misguided attempts at making it so are not helpful.

The issue is not one of entitlement, production, or theft...but one of boundaries. One person's interest in securing the profitability of a work is directly conflicting with someone else's interest in being able to make full use of the (hardware AND software) resources available to them. Perhaps my natural desire to play a game for free should not supersede your "right" (sic) to ensure that every copy of your work is paid for. But, conversely, neither does your desire to get paid justify forcefully taking control of my computer (and the computers of every person in the world) away.

So, we need to work out these boundaries. In order to work them out fairly, we need to understand them in exacting detail. Thus, we must avoid oversimplifications like yours.

Re:You are wrong

[Rennt]

Theft deprives the owner of use

Exactly so. The only theft that occurs in the Securom situation is perpetrated by EA on its own customers. Securom should be illegal.

Re:This does NOT remove the DRM, just moves the ga

[Anonymous Coward]

So couldn't you install, clone the hard drive, deauthorize the clone and go on you way?

Single-player example

[Jabbrwokk]

The Witcher (original, not the Enhanced Edition) shipped with a CD-Key that most people thought was useless. It allowed you to register your game with publisher Atari and get... not much.

However, the studio later released an Enhanced Edition, which added more cutscenes, more dialogue, more quests, two side-missions that stand alone from the main game, the official soundtrack, a CD of music inspired by the game and a "making-of" DVD. All this stuff was available for purchase; but the best part is the studio and Atari made all the new content available FOR FREE DOWNLOAD to all the owners of the original game who had registered their games using those previously mostly-useless CD keys.

The content could not be installed without keys. Of course pirates could just download cracked versions of the enhanced editions, but that's a humongous download, six gigs-plus and I doubt casual copiers would bother. Offering all that content free to confirmed, legitimate owners of the original edition wasn't just a nice thing to do, it was also a good incentive to have a legitimate copy of the game.

There were some problems in Canada - the bilingual manual was printed without keys. Oops. I'm one of the people who bought the original game and was stoked when I learned about the new content - only to flip through every page in the manual and find there was no fucking key. Good one, hope the proof-reader got fired for that. However, Atari support was pretty good, I filed a key request and two weeks later was happily slaying drowners with my silver sword - enhanced edition style.

Anyway, this might be a copy-protection scheme worth considering - downloadable content available only for legitimate, registered owners. I don't know how this would work with your game, but for me in my example, I thought it worked great (except for that shitty Polish download server they decided to use to release the enhanced edition content. Good idea, bad execution - make it EASY for customers to get the good stuff and they'll be less likely to visit TPB.)

Ummm...Mac Binary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I got Spore for OS X...Where's that binary? I'm pretty sure all the SecuROM stuff just runs under Cedega.

Ok, now I might consider getting Mass Effect.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Might

Re:Ok, now I might consider getting Mass Effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do so. It's a damn fine solid RPG and well worth springing for.

[BTW, I'd downloaded the cracked version, after two or three days decided I'd buy it, but finished the game the day before my copy landed on the door.]

Although I've enjoyed FishWithAHammer's discussion re. the release of a commercial product, my personal take is that if I cannot try the product out - either a trial version or via TPB - I'll not buy it. I've been burned too often (Bioshock, The Witcher, I'm staring hard in your direction here). The Witcher, even with the bonus content, felt so pedestrian and kludgy that I never even bothered to complete it.

On the other hand, I pre-ordered Fallout 3. Call me a fanboy, but I've played Bethesda's games since Morrowind (which a friend got free with a video card, and which I subsequently bought). I know FO3 isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I've found it a pretty solid RPG with a lot of atmosphere, and I've definitely got my £25 worth.

I'll probably pre-order Dragon Age - despite the DRM - because I trust BioWare to do a decent RPG. I also quite fancy Velvet Assassin - but, as it's from a relatively unknown games publisher they're going to have to prove themselves before I'll spring. And this will be either a legitimate demo, or a download from TPB. And without either of those options, I will neither play or pay for it.

Just my £0.02.

What about a Mac version?

[Franklin Brauner]

I mean, not seriously, but what about it?

Re:What about a Mac version?

[kwerle]

I mean, not seriously, but what about it?

<aol>
Me, too!
</aol>

But seriously.

Perspiration of currency?

[jonaskoelker]

It sure does piss off people who on a normal day would hand you a sweat wad of cash without thinking twice.

*sigh* What I wouldn't pay to have money seeping out my pores...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This does NOT remove the DRM, just moves the ga

[Anonymous Coward]

While what you outline above is true and correct, the real problem is of course the day EA decides (on its own accord, or forced through its business collapsing, or whatever) to not give a shit about their online activation servers any longer.

Sucks to be the customer then.

Oh, what is that I hear some apologists say? "They wouldn't do that." "You wouldn't keep playing games that old." To which I can only respond: Why the fuck do you think that you know anything about, or can decide anything regarding, what they or I will do in the future?

Could be other possibilities

[Mathinker]

What about if he actually bought another EA game several times, and it didn't even work for him under XP because of a crappy DRM scheme (or possibly just insufficient QA on the port of the game from W98 to XP)? I could understand him feeling justified in pirating what he felt was equivalent value for the value he didn't get for the money he spent.

This scenario is at least self-limiting, as opposed to the "I wouldn't have bought it" justification.

I personally have been in the above situation (except for the pirating, and it wasn't EA), and I could see myself downloading a working cracked version if I had already paid for something which just didn't work...