Capcom on SecuROM: It's not the bad guy

[mindcycle]

Capcom has defended the popular copy protection tool SecuROM, which is generally hated among the PC gaming community, saying it is "much maligned for things that it is not necessarily responsible for".

SecuROM, which is used by publishers and developers as an anti-piracy measure in many PC games, has drawn complaints from gamers because it imposes activation limits, re-authentication and can be difficult to remove.

However, speaking to VideoGamer.com, Christian Svensson, Capcom vice president, business development and strategic planning, defended SecuROM and said the technology itself shouldn't be blamed for how it's used by publishers and developers.

"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. SecuROM is as onerous or innocuous as a developer or publisher chooses to make the policies. You can decide, for example, what is the appropriate number of concurrent installs. I say concurrent as a very important distinction. You can enable replication of licenses that it becomes a concurrency issue. So instead of having five installs for life, as long as you provide a revoke tool or some other mechanism to revoke, or you have the revoke tool happen transparently via uninstall, you can install or unistall a million times, but you can only have it on three, five, seven, ten, whatever the policy you chose to hold, machines at any one time."

"The technology itself is not the bad guy. It's how it's implemented and, further more, how it's communicated or not communicated to fans. I think so many people have been beaten up so badly with let's say more restrictive forms of DRM that they always assume the worst. That's not always the case."

Svensson said that much of the hatred towards the tool is the result of "a lot of miscommunication that has happened through some of the first implementations of the network authenticated versions of SecuROM", and explained that Capcom's policy is to allow gamers to "have access to the content you've got to the same extent as if you bought it on the disc and had no DRM".

"We haven't historically implemented phone home mechanisms," he said. "Basically once you've authenticated with us upon installation you're done."

When asked if Capcom will continue to use SecuROM with its future PC titles, Svensson replied: "That's our intention. We have a good, long-standing relationship with SecuROM. I don't anticipate that going away any time soon. And to be fair we think it's actually had really good results for us."

Capcom has PC versions of Street Fighter IV, Dark Void and Bionic Commando in the works for 2009.

Link to article: http://www.n4g.com/pc/News-289321.aspx

IMO they're just trying to justify still using SecuROM even though most gamers would rather not have to deal with it. Really.. what does a revoke tool or more installs really matter? You still have a game you can't easily resell, and in general it's just more of a PITA to have to deal with.

Give gamers greater incentives to buy games, not more roadblocks. But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

 

[coloumb]

Beating a Dead Horse

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Beating a Dead Horse

Yep, now plz lock before chizow reads this and spams the hell out of this thread.

 

[duragezic]

Yeah I mostly agree with his points. A lot of DRM issues are overblown. And I personally don't sell games, because I only buy a few that I'll really like, so that part means nothing to me.

And, if nothing else, I'd rather get a PC version of a game that has DRM than not get it on PC at all. It's unfortunate but I don't see DRM going away. And I like PC gaming way too much to ever be a console gamer.

 

[chronox]

I can't speak for others but I've never really had any issues or problems with SecuRom-protected games. The cd-key authentication process has been fairly painless but I can understand the headache that may arise from a limited number of allowed installs.

 

[s44]

Given that these schemes are basically just protection against day-one (or day-zero) piracy, why not announce a sunset of install limits after, say, six months?

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: s44
Given that these schemes are basically just protection against day-one (or day-zero) piracy, why not announce a sunset of install limits after, say, six months?

I think you would need a shorter expectation than 6 months. AutoCAD and SolidWorks have some of the craziest copy protection I've ever seen and those are still cracked a lot faster than 6 months.

Does anyone know where to get some data on how the sales of a console games go? I just want to see maybe a graph or something of how sales relate to release date. Is it really that critical to stop piracy for the first 1-2 weeks of game or movie sales?

 

[Lonyo]

I haven't had a problem with SecuROM so far.

I notice in the OP that you mention "you have a game you can't easily resell". I assume this means you prefer SecuROM to Steam...?
Honestly I'd much rather purchase a SecuROM game than a game using other prevalent forms of DRM because I haven't had any issues with it so far, it's non-invasive (compared to something like Steam).

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.
Give me a Securom game with 3 concurrent installs, a revoke tool, and no requirement for a CD to be in the drive and that's a-OK with me.

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: s44
Given that these schemes are basically just protection against day-one (or day-zero) piracy, why not announce a sunset of install limits after, say, six months?

I think you would need a shorter expectation than 6 months. AutoCAD and SolidWorks have some of the craziest copy protection I've ever seen and those are still cracked a lot faster than 6 months.

I realize that cracks will happen before then, but announcing a one-week expire would pretty much encourage casual piracy.

Six months is about when the price drop would ordinarily hit, too.

 

[Bateluer]

When asked if Capcom will continue to use SecuROM with its future PC titles, Svensson replied: "That's our intention. We have a good, long-standing relationship with SecuROM. I don't anticipate that going away any time soon. And to be fair we think it's actually had really good results for us."

Like a deer staring into a headlight, they are ignoring the facts. History and the market have shown that gamers don't want SecuRom in their games. Remove it entirely, and the inevitably sells better. Slash the game price down below 30, and it sells even more.

A company needs to pay attention to what their customers want, its rule #1.

 

[lupi]

I've got some older games I can't play without getting a crack cause of the included copy protection; the type included at the release of those titles would not allow it to run if you had multiple cd drives installed and with multiple opticals being a near standard, not to mention all the other types of "drives" that it could detect (card reader slots etc...)



As far as problems with the current methods, there is always a hugh leap of faith for any service that relies on a 3rd party server so you can continue playing/installing your game. There are some publishers known for dropping support for a title when they've decided to cease spending anymore expenses on it. If you're perfectly fine in paying now, playing for the short term, then tossing it in the trash then you probably aren't concerned about this. Those of us with large collections that like to occasionally bring back an old title do not treat such schemes so flippant.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: lupi
As far as problems with the current methods, there is always a hugh leap of faith for any service that relies on a 3rd party server so you can continue playing/installing your game. There are some publishers known for dropping support for a title when they've decided to cease spending anymore expenses on it. If you're perfectly fine in paying now, playing for the short term, then tossing it in the trash then you probably aren't concerned about this. Those of us with large collections that like to occasionally bring back an old title do not treat such schemes so flippant.

What's strange is that PC gamers seem to have this mentality while lots of console gamers have the opposite mentality. That's not a super accurate stereotype or anything, but I mean all of the PC gamers I know including myself go to relatively great lengths to preserve their games. I, for example, make iso or mdf images of all my game discs and I keep them backed up on a network drive with the cd key written in a .txt file. While there are probably some console gamers like that, I know quite a few console gamers who really have no intention of keeping a game for more than a month before selling it and buying a different game.

I can see why a company would have a hard time figuring out why they can't use the same copy protection for both systems, or why Sony can't figure out why console gamers don't like needing to install shit before playing it on their PS3 even though PC gamers gladly do that.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: coloumb
Beating a Dead Horse

Yep, now plz lock before chizow reads this and spams the hell out of this thread.

Yes, chizow will destrroy this thread and rain many posts down upon those who disagree with him.

 

[Red Irish]

"Give gamers greater incentives to buy games, not more roadblocks. But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?"[/quote]

Couldn't agree more. The companies know that Securom doesn't work with regards to combatting piracy. Thus, we need to ask what their intentions are when they continue to use it in the face of so much criticism.

 

[Barfo]

So basically Capcom are saying they are the bad guys...ok.

 

[Red Irish]

The conversation, as ludicrous as it may appear, can be summed up as follows:

customers: please stop using Securom.
companies: No, you don't understand the way Securom works.
customers: please stop using Securom, its ineffective against piracy and its causing me a lot of headaches.
companies: No, you don't understand the way Securom works.

and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

 

[dclapps]

I'm starting to take the stance that someone mentioned on The Intertron somewhere -- DRM is only meant for two things:

-to curb (pre)zero-day piracy
-to curb the used game market

Danny

 

[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:

 

[lupi]

On day we will all be gifted when your ass is banned.

 

[aka1nas]

If they actually set up SecureROM to work the way they specified, it would actually be kind of nice. I.E. you are allowed to have 5 installations of the game active at once, with an easy method of reclaiming installations that doesn't rely on that install being accessible any longer.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: lupi
On day we will all be gifted when your ass is banned.

LMAO, the irony coming from someone who spends the majority of their time in P&N and OT flaming, baiting and trolling. Further emphasized by the caption in your sig. Oh my the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: lupi
On day we will all be gifted when your ass is banned.

LMAO, the irony coming from someone who spends the majority of their time in P&N and OT flaming, baiting and trolling. Further emphasized by the caption in your sig. Oh my the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

anyone who says traitor in chief is a jackass

 

[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.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Beating a Dead Horse

The article was posted on the 5th, not sure how that's beating a dead horse. It's obviously still relevant if a large corp like capcom is making a public statement about it.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I haven't had a problem with SecuROM so far.

I notice in the OP that you mention "you have a game you can't easily resell". I assume this means you prefer SecuROM to Steam...?
Honestly I'd much rather purchase a SecuROM game than a game using other prevalent forms of DRM because I haven't had any issues with it so far, it's non-invasive (compared to something like Steam).

I don't prefer either.