Alpha Protocol PC DRM Explained, Will Be Removed Eventually

[mindcycle]

Publisher Sega has explained the ins and outs of the 'Uniloc: SoftAnchor' DRM scheme chosen for Obsidian Entertainment's espionage RPG Alpha Protocol, covering what it means for players and revealing plans to eventually remove the DRM altogether.

Uniloc: SoftAnchor will allow five active installations of Alpha Protocol at any given time, which can be deactivated either by uninstalling them or via a website. Online activation will be required only when the game is first installed, with the option to activate by "saving a file and transporting it to the computer that does have web access."

"We take your rights as a consumer very seriously, so we will provide a version of the game without license management (available as a patch) in around 18-24 months after release," assures Sega. "We can't be specific about the exact date due to business factors, but rest assured that we will provide an unprotected patch."

Read the rest here: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/63600

Not sure about you guys but this seems fairly reasonable given "other" failed DRM methods that have recently been used. I would imagine it will be cracked just a quickly as anything else but at least SEGA is keeping their customers in mind, and for that I commend them.

 

[Lonyo]

DRM which gets removed is great.
Once again, EA are an example of this (they seem to be an example of every DRM scheme under the sun, which is both good and bad - good because sometimes they hit the mark, bad because you never know what to expect, good because it means they are trying things).

If you consider some of the issues and possible pitfalls of DRM, like servers shutting down, patching out DRM (and having a track record of doing that reliably) can only help ease any concerns, while also protecting the publishers and studios.

The best system IMO would be BFBC2 + older BF titles.
DRM where you get a choice (e.g. disc check, online, Steam, etc), and which gets patched out after say a couple of years (which has happened with BF2 and other older BF games I believe).

 

[lupi]

EA got hit hard for their crap, and seemed to have actually learned a bit. we'll have to see if the others going down their previous route also get this lesson and correct their ways.

 

[Zenoth]

I wonder if gamers will care as much for the game 18 to 24 months after its release.

 

[thedosbox]

I wonder if gamers will care as much for the game 18 to 24 months after its release.

If it's any good, it'll get reinstalled repeatedly over the years, so removing the DRM for the dedicated players is a good thing.

 

[BladeVenom]

I wonder if gamers will care as much for the game 18 to 24 months after its release.

I will, because that's when I'll buy it.

 

[pontifex]

The game sounds goo and even better is the news about the DRM

 

[paperfist]

I wonder if gamers will care as much for the game 18 to 24 months after its release.

For Civ IV I was as happy as a pig in mud after they removed disc check via a patch...

I know having a master server has it's down points, but it seems like the best protection around for devs and about the least bit invasive of all the other forms of protection. So why don't they all use that instead of trying to re-invent the wheel?

 

[Raduque]

I've been looking forward to Alpha Protocol, and this DRM is acceptable to me.

 

[coloumb]

I wonder if gamers will care as much for the game 18 to 24 months after its release.

Most won't - but the few who do will be happy when the DRM is removed by then.

 

[Gothgar]

God I hate DRM

 

[mindcycle]

The DRM will of course be cracked at some point (probably within the first few days of release), so it's really rather pointless in the grand scheme of things and will only affect legit customers. However, I understand that large companies like SEGA have to appease their shareholders who most likely know nothing about that gaming industry. They would have a harder time justifying not including DRM at all since piracy is such a huge buzzword nowadays.

I do commend them for keeping their customers in mind and actually committing to the removal of said DRM at some point. The DRM itself seems almost identical to SecuROM online authentication based DRM with a deactivation feature. Too bad they aren't following EA's footsteps and offering multiple ways of authenticating (cd check or one time online), like what was introduced in Battlefield BC2. But like I said, at least they are listening, unlike some publishers..

 

[waggy]

I wonder if gamers will care as much for the game 18 to 24 months after its release.

If its good then yes i will care. a good game gets reinstalled over and over. hell i just finished playing Diablo 2 again.

 

[s44]

The DRM will of course be cracked at some point (probably within the first few days of release), so it's really rather pointless in the grand scheme of things and will only affect legit customers.

Incorrect. Given sales patterns for AAA releases, day zero piracy is a *much* bigger problem than day 14 piracy (and it took longer than 14 days for the similar scheme in MEPC to be cracked).

 

[Golgatha]

I wonder if this is like most of the software keys used for really expensive software? In that you register your key, then you get a software file to use on the PC you've installed the software to? The only problem here is the key is normally generated based on the hardware it's installed on. It would be nice if the key was tied to just the installation key code and nothing else. That way one could resell the software along with the unique file.

However, the last thing we need is another username and password for every company under the sun who wants to use this type of scheme if one needs to delete activations in order to install their software.

OT: I wish I could do this with my retail copies of Windows 7. Seems like I have to phone in every time I install Windows, and it's become just a bit of an annoyance.

 

[mindcycle]

Incorrect. Given sales patterns for AAA releases, day zero piracy is a *much* bigger problem than day 14 piracy (and it took longer than 14 days for the similar scheme in MEPC to be cracked).

I'd be very interested in seeing the data that backs up your statement. You can assume that zero day piracy is a greater problem than at day 14, but without any evidence it's as much as an assumption as the one i'm making.. that DRM does nothing in the grand scheme of things. It seems logical to me that pirates aren't the ones who are purchasing games in the first place so DRM is essentially worthless. But again, that's just an assumption and i'd freely admit that. So if my assumption is somehow incorrect i'd assume you'd have some hard data to back that up..

What isn't an assumption however, is that DRM "only" affects legit customers. That's fact.

 

[s44]

This strawman-smashing article has been around for a long time. Read it all (particularly here and here) before spreading more FUD.

What isn't an assumption however, is that DRM "only" affects legit customers. That's fact.

No, it's obvious nonsense that shows your lack of good faith in this argument.

Every would-be pirate that has been foiled -- even if only for a time -- by the lack of a clean cracked copy has been affected by DRM. So has every "casual", er, non-customer who can't just take over his friend's copy.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I wonder if gamers will care as much for the game 18 to 24 months after its release.

I will, because that's when I'll buy it.

This.

There are new games coming out all the time. Old games go on sale all the time. I no longer have any reason to be an early adopter since I can just whittle down my backlog of games first and wait for whatever new game to come down in price before I buy.

I know publishers hate it when people don't buy their game during the week of the launch for a full $50-$60, but it's a very rare game indeed that I feel is actually worth that much money. There are enough $10-$20 alternatives out there that I'd rather just buy those. Besides, I buy almost all my games on Steam, so the money is still getting to them rather than going to a random person selling me a used copy.

I've never even heard of Alpha Protocol but it looks like an average 3rd person action RPG. Sorry, not gonna be plunking down $50 for it. It doesn't look like it'll have much replay value so it'll probably hit $20-$30 within six months.

 

[s44]

I've never even heard of Alpha Protocol but it looks like an average 3rd person action RPG.

Well, sort of.

It's an average 3rd person action RPG... written by the guy who did Torment.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Well, sort of.

It's an average 3rd person action RPG... written by the guy who did Torment.

Never played Planescape: Torment but I did love Fallout 2 so I guess this warrants a closer look! That'll teach me to judge a game by its outward appearance... still, you never know. Could be awesome, could be horrible. Still not interested in paying $50 for a single player only game.

 

[mindcycle]

This strawman-smashing article has been around for a long time. Read it all (particularly here and here) before spreading more FUD.

I read that entire article when he first published it, and while it's a great read, it still doesn't provide any hard data to back up your claim that stopping zero day piracy garners any measurable amount of extra sales. Until you can provide that data it's simply assumption like i've already stated.

No, it's obvious nonsense that shows your lack of good faith in this argument.

Every would-be pirate that has been foiled -- even if only for a time -- by the lack of a clean cracked copy has been affected by DRM. So has every "casual", er, non-customer who can't just take over his friend's copy.

Ok, you're right. DRM does foil casual pirates, so i'll give you that one. But beyond that pirates will almost always get the better experience because the majority of them aren't the ones dealing with the DRM, which is the sad part. So if you want to get into specifics, yes, a few casual pirates might be foiled by DRM, but on the flip site the vast majority of pirates aren't being affected at all.

When non-technical gamers can download a game from a torrent and play it easier than a person who bought the game legitimately there is a huge problem IMO.

 

[mmntech]

EA got hit hard for their crap, and seemed to have actually learned a bit. we'll have to see if the others going down their previous route also get this lesson and correct their ways.

Yep, the Spore scandal back in 2008. I think they lost a lot of consumer confidence when that happened, especially among the elusive casual gamers. That's a market you don't want to loose.

I still say Valve's Steam is the fairest DRM scheme out there. Given how fickle PCs can be sometimes, install limits have never sat well with me. I refuse to buy games that use them.

 

[Attic]

DRM = Bad

The graphics shown on the commercials that have been running for this game = worse

To me it looked a shade better than UT99.

 

[Ancalagon44]

@s44

So is it fair to say that DRM affects the minority of pirates and the majority of paying customers? While, at the same time decreasing sales due to bad press, and never being 100% effective in stopping piracy because it is always, without exception, cracked.

Whoever pays money to implement DRM is wasting money.

 

[Maximilian]

God I hate DRM

-^