Re: BS in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20469412 en Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:48:16 EDT Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:48:16 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20477827 Mizzat :
said by rahvin112 See Profile :

. Since when does the publisher get to say that you can only install a game 3 times before you have to buy a new copy?
You don't have to buy another copy, just call them to activate a new install. Just like you have to do with Windows, Scansoft, etc, etc....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20477827 Tue, 13 May 2008 20:29:54 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20477805 rahvin112 : DRM that focuses on control is BAD, almost all DRM is bad by design. It doesn't stop piracy and all it does is annoy users. Since when does the publisher get to say that you can only install a game 3 times before you have to buy a new copy?

I'm fine with a DRM scheme like Steam where I am not limited and actually have far greater freedom with authorized use (including them keeping a backup copy for redownload) at the expense of authenticating online to initiate play along with offline mode.

I'm NOT ok with DRM that automatically assumes I'm a criminal and limits my use of the software to try to prevent unauthorized use which it won't prevent. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20477805 Tue, 13 May 2008 20:26:53 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20472914 anon :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

Can you, anonymous defender of EA, show me where this is not the case?
I'm far from an EA defender, so don't put words in my mouth, please. I hate EA for many reasons.

But I am being objective here, because they did take a huge step back with this DRM scheme.

However you must really hate them because you just cannot look at it objectively.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20472914 Mon, 12 May 2008 22:59:14 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20471858 dynodb :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

quote:
So you're saying that having to go online only for patches and new features is as bad as having to go online every 10 days no matter what?

I'm saying it's not much different. I still need a connection from the outset to use the product. Thereafter, I'm still authenticating every time I play multi-player, download a patch, or download new game content.
Initial install aside... multi-player, downloading patches or new content already involve an Internet connection. I'm not sure what the gripe is here if they're authenticating when you're connecting to the Internet to update or play the game anyways.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20471858 Mon, 12 May 2008 19:20:23 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20471391 Cheese :
said by skuv :

It's on 3 different PC's.

And they have stated that you can play without the disc being required in the drive.

The DSLR article makes it sound much worse than it is.

See here for more details:

»kotaku.com/5008454/spore-to-use-···tication

And patches are not released as often for games as the DSLR article says, so that part is pretty ridiculous in saying that it's not much of a tradeoff.

As if patches are released nearly as often as every 10 days.
I don't see anything stating in the DSLR article as to how often patches are released :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20471391 Mon, 12 May 2008 17:53:44 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20471069 Karl Bode :
quote:
Also, this allows you to play the game completely offline, which the original DRM scenario did not, because of the 10 day validation.


My understanding is the DRM still requires online activation to play the game. Can you, anonymous defender of EA, show me where this is not the case?
quote:
Are YOU even worried or are you just trying to make this look worse than it is by being sensational?


These solutions annoy more legit customers than pirates, and this one comes with a 3 PC limit, requires a connection for the first time ever, and comes from a company with a bad reputation (Securom). No, I'm not being sensational, I'm asking legitimate questions while everyone else is giving EA PR the benefit of the doubt for what seems to me like a very minor change in the overall DRM structure.
quote:
I never install a game on more than 2 computers myself, and I can certainly see that someone would install on more than 3. But you've got to be realistic and know that you and people that visit DSLR are NOT the norm.


What if you install it on two PC builds and a laptop, then sell it? Is that "the norm"? What if you keep the game for five years and by the time you're ready to play it, the activation server no longer exists because EA has dropped out of the PC gaming business to do consoles exclusively? Still not the norm?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20471069 Mon, 12 May 2008 16:58:23 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20470344 tad2020 :
said by skuv :

I never install a game on more than 2 computers myself, and I can certainly see that someone would install on more than 3. But you've got to be realistic and know that you and people that visit DSLR are NOT the norm. EA sadly isn't going to miss the few people that won't be this because they can't install it on 4+ computers simultaneously.
Does this proposed system limit its self to 3 simultaneous installations or 3 installations activations? The later is what I understood it to be, which could be troubling to anyone that plays a game several times over a couple of year period.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20470344 Mon, 12 May 2008 14:56:19 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20470317 tad2020 : 3 install limit is a bit insane. I have 3 gaming computers: my desktop at home, my desktop at work, and my new laptop (which will be dual booting Vista and XP soon). I'd already hit my 3 limit before the end of the week.

What about many years from now and I want to replay this old game, but all the auth servers went off line years back because they switched to the neural-fingerprint tracking chip system instead.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20470317 Mon, 12 May 2008 14:51:37 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20470214 anon : Sounds like you're assuming that there is some kind of interaction required to validate the game when you go online.

I would assume the opposite, that when you sign in online, it reads your CD key, and verifies you without you having to do anything. So if you're going online ANYWAY, what would be the problem there? That is a far cry from being required to be online because you don't know when the 10 days is going to hit, and you'll no longer be able to play the game.

Also, this allows you to play the game completely offline, which the original DRM scenario did not, because of the 10 day validation.

I should also mention that your post says BioWare specifically, and they make Mass Effect, which has no online play, you'd only be going online for patches and downloadable content. So what are you worried about there? Are YOU even worried or are you just trying to make this look worse than it is by being sensational?

I never install a game on more than 2 computers myself, and I can certainly see that someone would install on more than 3. But you've got to be realistic and know that you and people that visit DSLR are NOT the norm. EA sadly isn't going to miss the few people that won't be this because they can't install it on 4+ computers simultaneously.

Everyone would have been affected by the 10-day requirement, but now a small percentage of people with access to 4+ computers they want to install the game on are going to be affected. EA certainly knew if they affected EVERYONE that they were going to have significant issues.

I would say that is a huge step in the right direction and not simply a weak trade off as you suggest.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20470214 Mon, 12 May 2008 14:29:49 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20470085 Karl Bode :
quote:
So you're saying that having to go online only for patches and new features is as bad as having to go online every 10 days no matter what?
I'm saying it's not much different. I still need a connection from the outset to use the product. Thereafter, I'm still authenticating every time I play multi-player, download a patch, or download new game content.

Other than eliminating the ten day authentication window, what actually changed here?

I still absolutely need an Internet connection to play a purchased product. I'm still authenticating constantly. I still am restricted to 3 PC installs per key and have to negotiate with EA if I want to install a product I purchased on a fourth configuration. I'm still using Securom, whose history is troubled at best.... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20470085 Mon, 12 May 2008 14:00:52 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469929 anon :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

quote:
We'll re-authenticate when a player uses online features, downloads new content or a patch for their game.

Still doesn't strike me as much of a trade off.
So you're saying that having to go online only for patches and new features is as bad as having to go online every 10 days no matter what?

If you want new features and patches, then you need an Internet connection to begin with.

So what does it matter that you have to have a validated version of the game to get the patches and online content? You had to go online to get it in the first place...

Even Stardock does this, and they have no copy protection on their discs. You cannot get patches unless you have a CD key registered online with them. And people say that Stardock has the least interfering copy protection around.

How is EA far off from that here?

I don't buy EA games anyway, but I certainly don't see the change in this DRM as not being significant for the better. I can't remember the last time I could play a game without a crack to play without the disc in the drive.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469929 Mon, 12 May 2008 13:29:22 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469626 AquaBlaze :
said by skuv :

And they have stated that you can play without the disc being required in the drive.
So EA made one step forward, and took 5 steps back. Well done. :uhh:

said by skuv :

And patches are not released as often for games as the DSLR article says, so that part is pretty ridiculous in saying that it's not much of a tradeoff.
I can play the console versions w/o worrying about where I may have played this game or being locked out from patches.

Personally, the tradeoff for playing old games again on a mouse/keyboard isn't worth the technical hassles the publisher wants to put me through.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469626 Mon, 12 May 2008 12:25:20 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469484 Karl Bode :
quote:
We'll re-authenticate when a player uses online features, downloads new content or a patch for their game.
Still doesn't strike me as much of a trade off.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469484 Mon, 12 May 2008 11:51:43 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469412 anon : It's on 3 different PC's.

And they have stated that you can play without the disc being required in the drive.

The DSLR article makes it sound much worse than it is.

See here for more details:

»kotaku.com/5008454/spore-to-use-···tication

And patches are not released as often for games as the DSLR article says, so that part is pretty ridiculous in saying that it's not much of a tradeoff.

As if patches are released nearly as often as every 10 days.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469412 Mon, 12 May 2008 11:39:51 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469366 Mizzat :
said by TOPDAWG See Profile :

I can only install this thing 3 times even on the same PC or does it mean I can install it on 3 pc's? That seems kind of dumb if you can just put it on one PC 3 times. Damn no wonder PC gaming is hurting. I was going to buy spore but fork it I'll just download it now.

Ok now I want to know this say I buy spore and me and the wife want to play it on both our PC's can we install it on both? It's not issue to play a console game on different consoles should be the same for PC's.
Do you have Windows XP? It does the same thing....

You just call in when you need a new activation. Lots of software has that now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469366 Mon, 12 May 2008 11:30:34 EDT Re: BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469256 dispatcher21 : That what I was wondering. If for some reason I need to reinstall OS and all four times in a week, the game wont install the fourth time?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469256 Mon, 12 May 2008 11:05:51 EDT BS http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469171 TOPDAWG : I can only install this thing 3 times even on the same PC or does it mean I can install it on 3 pc's? That seems kind of dumb if you can just put it on one PC 3 times. Damn no wonder PC gaming is hurting. I was going to buy spore but fork it I'll just download it now.

Ok now I want to know this say I buy spore and me and the wife want to play it on both our PC's can we install it on both? It's not issue to play a console game on different consoles should be the same for PC's.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20469171 Mon, 12 May 2008 10:51:22 EDT