EA Announces Expansion of Its Always Online DRM Policy

[mindcycle]

For the same amount of time I get stuck in "connecting to EA servers" in Mass Effect 3 before the main menu, I would have logged in and loaded right into the game in the Diablo 3 Beta from desktop.

Small wonder they are losing customers and revenue left and right when they don't even know what this word called "accessibility" in 2012 means.

I hear ya. I got BF3 for free from a graphics card I recently purchased and the amount of time it takes to simply load the the single player game is absurd. You click the link on your desktop, it loads Origin, then it loads a webpage, then you have to click single player campaign. That process typically takes around 2-3 mins but if Origin finds an update or can't connect (which happens about half the time I want to play the game), it will easily double or triple that load time. When you are finally able to load the actual game it takes another 3-4 mins..

I finally got fed up with it and downloaded a crack so I can just load the damn game and start playing it. I'm glad that I got the game for free though as I would have been pissed if I had actually bought this pile. If this is the future of EA games, count me out..

 

[Rhezuss]

I have a question regarding Ramsdale comment on pirated games:

How the fuck can he accurately knows how much games were pirated? Did he just thought a game would sold for $500 000 000 but only sold for $264 800 000 so his only explanation is saying the game got pirated and they lost $235 200 000 based off his estimate?

How about some of your games sucks and/or your DRM policy is rebuting gamers?

 

[thespyder]

No, those are your words, as usual. Just like you assumed I was "disparaging" others' opinions right off the bat.

YAEAT

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

I am glad this statement is in no way disparaging. Clearly I need to look up the words 'disparaging' and 'blind hate train' in the dictionary.

Where is the evidence for anything being forced? Where are the words "must" or "compulsory" or "necessary" or anything like that found in this context? A few other sites actually reported on this interview and, not surprisingly, didn't even mention DRM. Not once.

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. (from the article on page 1)

Yep. I don’t see anything that says Electronic Arts is requiring users to be always online. What was I thinking?

You're missing the point. The idea is you're advocating for exactly what many people vilify EA for, serving the share holders first and making everything about the bottom line. You can't have it both ways, wanting a company to put the customers first and at the same time endorsing shareholder power to cut operations.for the sake of profits.

Are you even reading what you are typing? What I am saying is, IF EA is going to serve the share holders, which they clearly are, why not make that work for the consumers.

It adds a whole lot of investor value and yet you've been railing about how it won't be profitable and think the shareholders (investors) should be made aware of it? That's completely illogical.

Wait. Investors are those who invest in the company in the hopes that their endeavors will make a profit. Investors don’t MAKE the company any money directly. They supply it so that EA can produce something that might. Explaining to them how policies are not popular with consumers and will erode profits and thus reduce those profits and by extension, the investors return on the investors profits and thus allowing them to force the publishers to rethink their policy is illogical? Is black = white as well?

Not to mention, consumer value is a highly subjective and personal matter. I'd probably get some use out of a mobile SWTOR application myself. And as long as there's people who want something or will use something, there's value in it. And there's surely some audience for mobile tie-ins; Blizzard and Valve are both pushing it as well.

INDIVIDUAL consumer value may be highly subjective. But collective consumer value on the whole is based on what the vast majority of consumers want or don’t want, not the individual. In this case, most people here are posting against this. Only you are posting for it. Granted this is a tainted sample of the consumer populous, but it is still a reasonable supposition that more people don’t find value in the forced online than do.

 

[darkewaffle]

I am glad this statement is in no way disparaging. Clearly I need to look up the words 'disparaging' and 'blind hate train' in the dictionary.

Disparage means to disregard the value of; I don't think their opinions are worthless because I don't think they say it entirely without reason; EA has done something to upset them. What I do think happens though is essentially the same gut reaction over where as soon as people see "EA" their eyes flash red you get these uninformed, presumptuous responses.

Yep. I don’t see anything that says Electronic Arts is requiring users to be always online. What was I thinking?

Why still assume that article is accurate, given it's clear slant and the fact that other similar reports did not say such things?

Of all EA's games, the only one I could find with any evidence of 'always online' was C+C4. There was also anecdotal evidence of DLC in ME3 and KoA being inaccessible offline, but it sounds like it's currently specific to the Origin version of KoA so it's unclear if that's intended or not. With ME3 it's still up in the air but it does not seem to affect all users either.

Are you even reading what you are typing? What I am saying is, IF EA is going to serve the share holders, which they clearly are, why not make that work for the consumers.

That's kind of stretching it but I sort of see what you were getting at. Understand if I say it sounded much more like "If only the shareholders would listen to our explanations they would see the fiscal truth" rather than "Shareholders would be interested to see how unhappy their 'grassroots' consumers are".

Wait. Investors are those who invest in the company in the hopes that their endeavors will make a profit. Investors don’t MAKE the company. They supply it so that EA can produce something that might. Explaining to them how policies are not popular with consumers and will erode profits and thus reduce those profits and by extension, the investors return on the investors profits and thus allowing them to force the publishers to rethink their policy is illogical? Is black = white as well?

What's illogical was hypothesizing that it's going to lose the company money and then turning around and saying it's going to add to investor value. Those aren't congruent ideas in this scenario.

And while that sounds great in theory, it's unrealistic. That sort of dialogue between corporations and customers doesn't really exist, you'd have to convince investors that amidst [hundreds of] millions of games, phones, and apps sold every year that the market for them overlapping isn't profitable, and even further you'd have to convince them that catering to any vocal minority is better for business than picking the low hanging fruit that is the silent majority.

Share holders and consumers want different things because they both want more for less. Investors want to make more money for less money and customers want to get more product for less money. To an extent, this means they want the same thing because the company has to put out something good enough to sell. However that won't last long because of the perpetual butting of heads between the two groups over what/where 'good enough' is and one side wanting to save money on development and save ideas for future titles and the other wanting the most satisfying, polished experience possible each and every time.

INDIVIDUAL consumer value may be highly subjective. But collective consumer value on the whole is based on what the vast majority of consumers want or don’t want, not the individual. In this case, most people here are posting against this. Only you are posting for it. Granted this is a tainted sample of the consumer populous, but it is still a reasonable supposition that more people don’t find value in the forced online than do.

Posting against what? Almost every opinion put forth here has been formulated by a kneejerk reaction to a false premise from a bad article title. The fact that you still think of it as 'forced online' is proof positive of that. This is about integration and expansion of tertiary experiences to try and find a middle ground between 'mobile trinkets' and the 'core game' that are both profitable and meaningful.

 

[thespyder]

Disparage means to disregard the value of; I don't think their opinions are worthless because I don't think they say it entirely without reason; EA has done something to upset them. What I do think happens though is essentially the same gut reaction over where as soon as people see "EA" their eyes flash red you get these uninformed, presumptuous responses.

To all appearances, as soon as YOU saw “EA” in any sort of negative light, you posted your comment. And it was blanket and disparaging of any and all who posted. Denying that you meant what you wrote is a poor apology.

Why still assume that article is accurate, given it's clear slant and the fact that other similar reports did not say such things?

Of all EA's games, the only one I could find with any evidence of 'always online' was C+C4. There was also anecdotal evidence of DLC in ME3 and KoA being inaccessible offline, but it sounds like it's currently specific to the Origin version of KoA so it's unclear if that's intended or not. With ME3 it's still up in the air but it does not seem to affect all users either.

Read the article again. This is a ‘Published’ stance for all EA games going forward and confirmed by an EA executive. Read the article.

And of course you are not going to find much in the way of historical games that follow that pattern. It is being implemented in games going forward! Read the article.

That's kind of stretching it but I sort of see what you were getting at. Understand if I say it sounded much more like "If only the shareholders would listen to our explanations they would see the fiscal truth" rather than "Shareholders would be interested to see how unhappy their 'grassroots' consumers are".

What's illogical was hypothesizing that it's going to lose the company money and then turning around and saying it's going to add to investor value. Those aren't congruent ideas in this scenario.

How is it illogical to hypothesize that a company publicly states that it is about to put into action a policy that people disagree with. And that people are stating publicly that they will stop purchasing games by that company as a direct result of the policy. And a drop in sales directly related to consumers not purchasing will cause the company to lose money? Seems like A + B = C to me. Maybe it’s the math?

And while that sounds great in theory, it's unrealistic. That sort of dialogue between corporations and customers doesn't really exist, you'd have to convince investors that amidst [hundreds of] millions of games, phones, and apps sold every year that the market for them overlapping isn't profitable, and even further you'd have to convince them that catering to any vocal minority is better for business than picking the low hanging fruit that is the silent majority.

Share holders and consumers want different things because they both want more for less. Investors want to make more money for less money and customers want to get more product for less money. To an extent, this means they want the same thing because the company has to put out something good enough to sell. However that won't last long because of the perpetual butting of heads between the two groups over what/where 'good enough' is and one side wanting to save money on development and save ideas for future titles and the other wanting the most satisfying, polished experience possible each and every time.

I am not sure where you come from, but here on Earth, shareholders are human beings. The company that I work for has a quarterly earnings call and investors are invited to listen in on the state of the company and the future directions of its leadership. An open and frank discussion occurs between the senior leadership and the shareholders, for the very real reason that the shareholders vote in the board and will vote them out if they don’t listen to and abide by the shareholders wishes. Surprise, surprise, surprise, quite a number of the shareholders are consumers as well. And when they see a change in strategy that impacts them as consumers, they think to themselves “If I am incented not to purchase, then others might be as well. That would mean my profits go down. This seems like a bad thing. Stop it.”

Posting against what? Almost every opinion put forth here has been formulated by a kneejerk reaction to a false premise from a bad article title. The fact that you still think of it as 'forced online' is proof positive of that. This is about integration and expansion of tertiary experiences to try and find a middle ground between 'mobile trinkets' and the 'core game' that are both profitable and meaningful.

Yeah, I despair. You change your stance with the wind. First you claim that it has to be always online if people want cross platform compatibility. Then you say it isn&#8217;t always online at all. Now you are saying that &#8216;consumers want a tertiary experience.&#8217; <We don&#8217;t. Not for single player games. EA wants us to want it.> &#8216;and therefore it has to be always online.&#8217; Most of us are of the opinion that EA wants it merely so they can upsell the heck out of the market. And they want consumers to roll over and just take it. Call me crazy but if a company wants to enforce a new policy that only benefits them and doesn't benefit me, I am not best pleased.

I am curious as to what position you hold at EA though. That really does intrigue me.

 

[coloumb]

I have a question regarding Ramsdale comment on pirated games:

How the fuck can he accurately knows how much games were pirated? Did he just thought a game would sold for $500 000 000 but only sold for $264 800 000 so his only explanation is saying the game got pirated and they lost $235 200 000 based off his estimate?

How about some of your games sucks and/or your DRM policy is rebuting gamers?

"Estimated" is the key word.

In other words - make up some value significant enough for shareholders and managers to take notice - even though they have no hard data to show exactly how many were pirated. If the value is significant enough - then they can get funding to develop ways to combat piracy [most high level managers are corrupt and greedy - so I'd guess Ramsdale is pocketing a large % of whatever the budget allows].

They might be looking at torrents - but there is no way to know how many of those people actually decided to purchase the game after they downloaded it.

 

[blastingcap]

If EA were honest about the "benefits" of its new policy, it would make it OPTIONAL. As in, opt-in. Heck even opt-out would be okay. But making it mandatory makes it clear that this move is not driven by EA's desire to please customers.

Most "lost" sales aren't really lost since those people weren't going to buy the game anyway, at any price. And counting number of downloads is overcounting since not everyone actually completes the download and installs and plays; what about partial downloads or downloads that are never installed or played? (However, people who like to try before buying should use demos instead so that is not an excuse.)

Also, how about counting the OTHER side of the ledger: the lost sales from customers who WOULD HAVE BOUGHT if the DRM weren't as bad or weren't there at all? I know I've avoided some titles due to bad DRM reputations, before.

 

[Kalmah]

One day many months back I had decided that I wanted a bunch of my on-disc games as iso's so I wouldn't have to switch discs. Instead of going through the trouble of copying them myself I torrented a ton of them. It's easy to just pick them on a list then be on my way, continuing doing whatever I was doing. (I was busy with something, didn't want to slow my machine down while this stuff was being copied)

I have my case full of these games literally right beside me. These downloads will be added to the 'pirated' statistics though. Lost money from games I already own.

You also gotta consider that some people who are pirating might try to download the same game from several different trackers at the same time to see which one is going to be the quickest then cancel the slow ones. Only 1 out of 6 might actually turn out to be a full download. And also, based on the my own personal experience with other Humans, most of them are not smart enough to know what to do with an iso after they have it. I bet thousands of those get downloaded then put straight into the recycle bin.

I guess what I'm trying to get to is, there is so much stupid on the internet I can almost guarantee that a large percentage of those downloads don't even get unzipped.

I'm sure a lot of the publishers are bluffing their way through bad sales with 'piracy' excuses.

But, there still are douchebags in high number. It wasn't more than a week ago that a girl at work was telling me how her awesome boyfriend downloads all of his games. Good for him, he's giving these publishers an excuse to fuck over the paying customers.

 

[thespyder]

One day many months back I had decided that I wanted a bunch of my on-disc games as iso's so I wouldn't have to switch discs. Instead of going through the trouble of copying them myself I torrented a ton of them. It's easy to just pick them on a list then be on my way, continuing doing whatever I was doing. (I was busy with something, didn't want to slow my machine down while this stuff was being copied)

I have my case full of these games literally right beside me. These downloads will be added to the 'pirated' statistics though. Lost money from games I already own.

You also gotta consider that some people who are pirating might try to download the same game from several different trackers at the same time to see which one is going to be the quickest then cancel the slow ones. Only 1 out of 6 might actually turn out to be a full download. And also, based on the my own personal experience with other Humans, most of them are not smart enough to know what to do with an iso after they have it. I bet thousands of those get downloaded then put straight into the recycle bin.

I guess what I'm trying to get to is, there is so much stupid on the internet I can almost guarantee that a large percentage of those downloads don't even get unzipped.

I'm sure a lot of the publishers are bluffing their way through bad sales with 'piracy' excuses.

But, there still are douchebags in high number. It wasn't more than a week ago that a girl at work was telling me how her awesome boyfriend downloads all of his games. Good for him, he's giving these publishers an excuse to fuck over the paying customers.

If you want an eye opener on how these companies come up with their published statistics on piracy, check out this link. It gives some perspective on the types of shenanigans that marketing analysts use when coming up with the figures they use to support their assumptions.

 

[Kalmah]

If you want an eye opener on how these companies come up with their published statistics on piracy, check out this link. It gives some perspective on the types of shenanigans that marketing analysts use when coming up with the figures they use to support their assumptions.

lol. I never saw the numbers lied out so simple before. Good video.

 

[Jaskalas]

Nothing wrong with always online for PCs. There's a reason steam is doing well.

 

[Final8ty]

Nothing wrong with always online for PCs. There's a reason steam is doing well.

Steam indeed was doing really well when i had no internet for a month and i played games in offline mode.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Nothing wrong with always online for PCs.

Actually there is.

Steam is doing well because they offer good games very cheap and not for any other reason.

Always online DRM is total bullshit and I recommend that if you hate all this trash as much as I do just quit buying games and go play your back catalogue for a year or two. I guarantee you everything would change if we all did this. I am already doing just that.

 

[lupi]

yep, if steam wasn't into offering penny on the dollar sales it would still mostly be hated for its drm method.

 

[georgec84]

Speak with your wallets, folks. If you don't agree with a company's practices, don't buy games from them.

 

[thespyder]

Actually there is.

Steam is doing well because they offer good games very cheap and not for any other reason.

Always online DRM is total bullshit and I recommend that if you hate all this trash as much as I do just quit buying games and go play your back catalogue for a year or two. I guarantee you everything would change if we all did this. I am already doing just that.

Agree with you. Up to a point. It is true that if people like us with a conscience and a brain were to stop purchasing and play their back catalogue, profits would drop. However, the Marketing spin doctors in companies like EA would simply cry Piracy as the reason for the drop. They aren't going to stand up and admit that their methods are the reason for the lost sales.

and quite frankly, there are sheep like the other guy who will blindly still purchase, not knowing or caring that the world is larger than the end of their noses. And then wonder why people don't support them when something that they don't like happens.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Also, how about counting the OTHER side of the ledger: the lost sales from customers who WOULD HAVE BOUGHT if the DRM weren't as bad or weren't there at all? I know I've avoided some titles due to bad DRM reputations, before.

I've avoided buying loads of games because of stupid pointless shit included in them such as excessive DRM, GFWL or forcing the use of Origin. I have loads of disposable income at this point in my life and have a huge games catalogue, but I flat out refuse to buy into this crap.

All I can say to the developers that make these games are, "I hope the ~24 hours or less of 'protection' your DRM afforded you was worth the lost sales of otherwise loyal gamers. P.S. Fuck you"

 

[skipsneeky2]

You are kicking ass in a round of BF3,basically dominating when you get this....


''You were disconnected from Ea online" and poof goes the game.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Agree with you. Up to a point. It is true that if people like us with a conscience and a brain were to stop purchasing and play their back catalogue, profits would drop. However, the Marketing spin doctors in companies like EA would simply cry Piracy as the reason for the drop. They aren't going to stand up and admit that their methods are the reason for the lost sales.

and quite frankly, there are sheep like the other guy who will blindly still purchase, not knowing or caring that the world is larger than the end of their noses. And then wonder why people don't support them when something that they don't like happens.

I agree with your sheep philosophy and it is that very problem that could ruin gaming for people like us. That said, those spin doctors wouldn't have jobs in a couple of years if we caused the entire market to implode.