EA Announces Expansion of Its Always Online DRM Policy

[Final8ty]

Electronic Arts’ policy of requiring its users to always be online when playing their games is going to continue but with a twist, confirmed Keith Ramsdale, the general manager of EA Northern Europe.

This new version of the always online requirement will feature the implementation of “online universes,” which will emphasize an always-online connection to resources on EA’s servers.



Ramsdale explained the new vision for EA’s always online policy.

Imagine a player gets up in the morning, plays an online match on his 360 before going to work. On the bus, on his way to work, he practices his free kicks on his tablet. At lunch he looks at the transfer window on his PC. On the way home he chooses his kit on his smartphone.

Here’s the thing: when he gets home to play again on his 360 that evening, all those achievements and upgrades will be alive in his game. We’re very focused on transforming all of our brands into these online universes. That gives the consumer full control of how and when they play in a rich world of content.

The new policy will be extended to all of EA’s franchises, including FIFA, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, The Sims, Need for Speed, and Star Wars games, among others.

Ramsdale did not give a timeframe for this policy change.

Analysis: Gaming’s a big business now, and that means that the stakes of piracy are much higher. For example, Crysis 2, last year’s most pirated game, reported an estimated 3,920,000 pirated copies, resulting in approximately $235,200,000 of lost income. Of course, it’s difficult to aggregate what percentage of pirates are actual lost customers, but when you’re losing $235 million dollars on a game from piracy, it doesn’t really matter anymore. The fact of the matter is that, even if only 10% of pirates were actual lost customers, then you’re still losing a painful $23 million due to piracy.

Crysis 2 wasn’t an anomaly, either. In 2011, games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, FIFA 12, and Portal 2 all recorded estimate piracy levels of over 3 million copies, and it’s important to note that three of those games are titles that EA published.

So I think the message here is clear. Piracy is a real, veritable concern to any publisher releasing high-profile AAA games for the PC. Therefore, EA has a right and a business duty to be worried about piracy and to try and think of ways to fix this issue.

Now, before you all get your pitchforks and torches and storm my house saying that I’m pro-DRM, let me state for the record that I think, unequivocally, that EA’s always online policy is draconian, misguided, and repulsive. It’s a prime example of taking the wrong route of DRM; it’s punishing all of their players because of pirates rather than rewarding the paying customers for their patronage. It’s bad; it doesn’t work; it frustrates real customers; and I think that, ironically, it’s contributing to the piracy of their games rather than helping to correct the issue.

As such, when I hear of this new development in EA’s DRM policy, I can’t help but feel that this is one step forward and two steps back. On the one hand, EA is actually trying to ease the pain of the always online requirement by adding helpful and customer-positive features to it such as cross-platforming and cloud saving. However, in the process of doing this, EA not only misses the point again on why their DRM sucks, they also go in yet another completely misguided direction by taking away even more game ownership from customers. With this new policy, EA is not only continuing but expanding their practice of making customers jump through hoop after hoop to gain the content they paid for, and those who do brave the obstacles are being rewarded with less actual ownership of that content. You know what that means: customers are going to grow tired and frustrated with the draconian DRM and look to piracy to try and circumvent all the hassle. It’s a vicious cycle, isn’t it?

The fact of the matter is that you don’t “beat piracy,” and if that’s how you approach the issue, then you’re just going to frustrate everybody and get nowhere. What you really need to do is encourage people to be legitimate customers rather than pirates, and EA’s new policy most certainly does not attempt this in any shape or form.

Ultimately, I’m disheartened to hear this news. If EA keeps up the pace with their attempts to bludgeon users into buying and using the game exactly how the company wants, then I think their future with the PC market might be pretty bleak.

http://www.gamingbus.com/2012/04/23/ea-announces-expansion-online-drm-policy/

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Right and business duty =/= insane DRM as the solution.

Down with EA.

Here's hoping Planetside 2 turns out good enough to drag off half the Battlefield playerbase. One can dream, can't he?

 

[Jodell88]

Gaming is becoming more of a chore than fun. The game industry should crash for a second time.

 

[weez82]

nvm

 

[Maximilian]

Meh... EA and Ubishit need to crash, rest is fine.

 

[Blintok]

i personally hate this online crapola. I have no problem with having to go online once to register/authenticate the game but pisses me off royally that i can not play a single player game without first having to be online.

point 1. there was a time my internet was down. no problem i thinks. just play some single player games. but no i cant play the game.

point 2. just recently i wanted to play the PC version of Skyrim. But i got the message from Steam that the game is not available. try again later.

but its not all bad i guess. game gets updated when new patches come out similar to a mmog.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I would be mad! Except, I already don't buy/play anything EA sells.

 

[thespyder]

I am kind of curious how much they are spending to maintain these, what has to be hundreds of servers in order to keep everyone who purchases their games playing. After all, according to their own statistics, almost 4 million players pirated their game. Assuming that is less than 100% of the total units out there, they will need to maintain servers to run at minimum 4 million players. Bet that adds a pretty penny to their bottom line. And who do you think is going to end up ultimately paying for upkeep and maintenance of those servers?

 

[KaOTiK]

Just makes it easier to know who not to buy games from as far as I'm concerned. Plenty of great games coming out that don't require this silly bullshit and I much rather support them then a plague like EA.

 

[mindcycle]

The fact of the matter is that you don’t “beat piracy,” and if that’s how you approach the issue, then you’re just going to frustrate everybody and get nowhere. What you really need to do is encourage people to be legitimate customers rather than pirates, and EA’s new policy most certainly does not attempt this in any shape or form.

/thread

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Er...you know, that article doesn't actually tell you anything at all about what they're actually doing.

Nowhere in the single quote they have does it actually say "EA requires you to be online at all times" - and what he describes doesn't actually require it.

 

[mindcycle]

Er...you know, that article doesn't actually tell you anything at all about what they're actually doing.

Nowhere in the single quote they have does it actually say "EA requires you to be online at all times" - and what he describes doesn't actually require it.

You're right. It's not actually clear whether or not the games have to be connected to the internet at all times in order to play as the actual press release didn't mention anything about that.. It wouldn't surprise me if that was actually the case, but I think the author just assumed it was without confirming anything.

http://www.primagames.com/games/battlefield-3/news/ea-transfrom-brands-into-online-universes

 

[busydude]

More crappy console ports. How long before console gamers bitch about how console games have devolved into crappy mobile ports. :awe: :wub:

 

[Cerb]

Imagine a player gets up in the morning, plays an online match on his 360 before going to work. On the bus, on his way to work, he practices his free kicks on his tablet. At lunch he looks at the transfer window on his PC. On the way home he chooses his kit on his smartphone.

A match is self-explanatory. I assume choosing his kit has to do with equipping a video game character (which really shouldn't take more than a minute or two, even for a game with complex tactical options tied to chosen equipment, so why not do it on a big screen, at home, with an easier UI?). Can someone maybe translate what the two middle sentences mean? They don't really expect people to play the same damn thing on a phone or tablet as their PC or XB360, do they? It might work for a JRPG, but not for a game worth getting a console or good computer for (sorry, Atlus).

I feel like I've seen this presentation already, except last time it was about Sharepoint. I generally feel like playing a new EA game about like I feel about using Sharepoint, too.

Of course, it’s difficult to aggregate what percentage of pirates are actual lost customers, but when you’re losing $235 million dollars on a game from piracy, it doesn’t really matter anymore. The fact of the matter is that, even if only 10% of pirates were actual lost customers, then you’re still losing a painful $23 million due to piracy.

I'd bet 10% is on the high end, even for companies that actually deserve users' money, like CDPR.

I am kind of curious how much they are spending to maintain these, what has to be hundreds of servers in order to keep everyone who purchases their games playing. After all, according to their own statistics, almost 4 million players pirated their game. Assuming that is less than 100% of the total units out there, they will need to maintain servers to run at minimum 4 million players. Bet that adds a pretty penny to their bottom line. And who do you think is going to end up ultimately paying for upkeep and maintenance of those servers?

If each play server keeps a list of activated keys, or goes to verify before allowing a player on, and limits concurrent activated users on the total network, they could remove regular online play for 99% of pirates. If they use online DRM, and aren't doing something like this...well, there is no lower bound to stupidity.

 

[Anteaus]

I'm confused. I had just assumed that once EA got Origin running all future games would require the player to be logged in for gameplay.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Non issue. Either don't purchase or if you do, get the crack. Non issue.

 

[Carfax83]

The article was later edited to correct the assumption that EA would store the actual game on their server, rather than particular gaming elements.

Anyway, Blizzard is doing the same thing with Diablo 3, so why aren't we lambasting them? I think most of the anger towards EA is driven by populist sentiments, rather than logic.

DRM was created as a response to rampant piracy, and most reasonable people would agree that developers and publishers have the right to protect their IP.

It's unfortunate that we, the paying customers, are the ones getting inconvenienced and shafted in the process. But what solutions are available that could please both the publisher/developers and the paying customer?

I've been a PC gamer for approximately 12 years now, so I've witnessed the evolution of DRM from CD keys, to activation/install limits, to always online, and now finally to always online with crucial game elements stored in an external server controlled by the developer/publisher.

CD keys, activation limits, and even always online did nothing to stop or even reduce the piracy of games. So all thats left now, is to remove aspects of the game from the game itself, and store it elsewhere out of reach of hackers and pirates.

It's the culmination of over a decade of experimenting with DRM schemes, and only time will tell whether it works or not..

That said, I don't know how it would be possible to pirate a game that stores crucial game elements in an off site server, and retain the same level of satisfaction as you would with a legitimate copy.. Diablo 3 for instance, will supposedly store monsters, loot and characters in Blizzard's server.

So this might finally be the nail in the coffin.. :sneaky:

 

[greenhawk]

it is hard to even want to care about EA with this approach. Most of the games I want to play are single player as playing with people can suck big time. The few games I regualary play online are fps and I can count the ones I have played for more than 10 hours in the last 8 years on two hands, proberly even one hand if I take out ones I have not played in 5 years.

I see no point to the mobile customization option as most games are dumbed down soo far that it is just picking a skin to use with no benifits. Only thing left is chatting with other gamers or reading about the game, which poeople already do.

As to the "at work" option, sounds good for those young people that would otherwise spend time on forums or facebook, but most works that I know of band those sorts of activites, so why would the businesses not band EA's attempt of getting the persons's attention?

As to the hoops you have to jump through, it does get so silly. Having EA's punkbuster crack it every now and then for no known reason (it can not tell us as that would give away how it works) is just wrong. I want to have fun and enjoy myself when gaming, not feel like a test subject in a electrocution study.

 

[power_hour]

I miss the days of video games being considered childish and secondary and were largely ignorned by big biz...

anyone got a time machine?

 

[Cerb]

Diablo 3 for instance, will supposedly store monsters, loot and characters in Blizzard's server.

We got used to that with Diablo 2, back in '01. Yeah, it could be played purely single player, but it wasn't made for it, and I can count the non-Bnet hours I've played on one hand. Diablo 3 is definitely an experiment from Activision/Blizzard (DRM and in-game economy).

Unlike EA, however, they have a decent history, treating their titles with the kind of long-term care MS gives to their OSes. Whereas EA recently shut down servers for many games, Blizzard still has their up for games nearing 15 years old*, and actually keep patching them until they are at least 10 or so. They might go too far at some point with DRM, and D3 might even end up being that, but EA has been screwing employees and customers over for a long time, now.

* maybe older, but the oldest I still have is Diablo; and, IMO, Starcraft is a one-in-a-million special case

 

[hardhat]

I don't mind blizzard's drm because they are using your connection to further improve the game. Battle.net is about connecting people, not just drm. I don't mind steam as drm because it is mostly unobtrusive and seamless, and it often is useful to find good deals. But I won't ever put up with always online drm, especially from EA because I believe they won't stop at just the drm, they will try to leverage their service to upsell other products, and probably try to squeeze every penny out of their customers if steam didn't exist (how about 2.50 per game download service fee?).

Making a few changes to make their drm look a little better won't change a thing when I've seen EA wreck franchise after franchise and implement as customer-repugnant of a system as they could in Securom. EA's games aren't worth buying. I won't pirate their games either, but I can see why people would.

 

[Powermoloch]

the difference with blizzard/steam vs EA is pretty simple. Quality of service.

 

[Sulaco]

Gaming is becoming more of a chore than fun. The game industry should crash for a second time.

Sig worthy. Sadly.

 

[thespyder]

If each play server keeps a list of activated keys, or goes to verify before allowing a player on, and limits concurrent activated users on the total network, they could remove regular online play for 99% of pirates. If they use online DRM, and aren't doing something like this...well, there is no lower bound to stupidity.

The point is, if you read between the lines, this initiative has almost nothing to do with Piracy. And everything to do with upselling and potential profits they are anticipating from after market, and cross platform content.

The mere fact that they are hosting servers enough to cover every single player proves this point. it is not cost efficient to do so unless they are anticipating additional revenue. Even considering declining usage over time, the cost to maintain acceptable levels of service in perpetuity will eventually outweigh the profit margin. So they HAVE to be anticipating additional revenue from some source. it's simple math.

The other option is that they are planning on pulling a Disney and discontinuing service for games after a certain point in anticipation of forcing new purchases (potentially of the next game in the franchise). Either way, the consumer is borked and the publisher proves how little they value customers.

Hey, EA just invented the 3 month purchase on Video games. Also known as RENTING it (at $60 a pop).

 

[darkewaffle]

YAEAT

It'll be nice when the next blind hate-train leaves the station, this is getting tiresome.