Capcom on SecuROM: It's not the bad guy

[rivan]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
"We have an agreement with SecuROM," he said. "They have been an excellent partner and I think they are, quite frankly, much maligned for things that they are not necessarily responsible for.

Svensson then excused himself, cutting the interview short, saying "I've got this check I need to cash, and the banks close in 40 minutes."

 

[pmv]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I honestly agree 100% with what Capcom is saying. Most people are just anti-DRM because they want to be anti_DRM, even if they have either not used it or not had any problems with it. It is 100% about how the publisher chooses to employ the DRM they use.

I think that's a bit presumptuous. One could just as easily say you are just not anti-DRM because you want to be not anti-DRM!

I'm anti DRM (certainly anti-online or limited activiation, disk-in-drive is fine) because when I buy something I want to own it, not to have it dependent on someone else continuing to allow me to use it. I also resent being obliged to carry on paying every month for a net connection I don't particularly otherwise need, just to be able to install or re-install games I've paid for. I don't actually see the net as something like the phone that I'll always pay for without thinking about it, its something I might very well decide to cut out at some point.

Plus DRM appears to go awry not infrequently, de-activation didn't work on at least one game, or you have a hard drive death etc.

I also often buy games second hand (though I never sell them again - kind of the ying to the yang of others on this thread)

Oh, and finally, it just _irritates_ me to have weird software installed on my machine I don't really understand and can't be sure the uninstall program will actually remove.

But I know, all this is boring and this thread is just a clone of previous ones. Ironic that copy protection leads to so much replication!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: chizow
Rofl, Securom doesn't bother me, it never has. But that's the point really, the overwhelming majority of legitimate game purchasers will never have a problem with Securom. Sure it could be better or more uniform in how it enforces its copy protection but its not worth arguing over, especially with the usual idiots in this thread.

As for the Capcom guy, I'm shocked he left off some of the more common complaints about Securom....like eating their homework and optical drive, nuking their OS install and kicking their dog. :laugh:

And to think, why all the fuss? We could all simply have e-mailed you for reassurance. How stupid we've all been, thanks for clearing that up. However, maybe the underwhelming minority might still have something to say.

No need to take my word for it, you could just take a look at the incredibly low percentage of class action lawsuits compared to games that use SecuRom and the number of copies sold.

If SecuRom was even a problem for 1% of users (10,000 people for a game that sold 1 million copies), you'd expect to see more class action law suits for sure. There's been countless filed with far fewer claimants and less money involved, but you can get an idea what happens when people start grasping at straws in their claims against SecuRom.