EA's DRM, arrogance may cause gamers to skip good titles

[mindcycle]

EA's CEO John Riccitiello recently spoke to Gamasutra about DRM, and sadly it still doesn't seem as if he understands the level of resentment and anger this issue has aroused. "Everyone gets that we need some level of protection, or we're going to be in business for free," Riccitiello said. He described the DRM furor as "a great PR program. They picked the highest-profile game they could find."

Riccitiello's description of the gamers involved in the controversy is even more galling. "I'm guessing that half of them were pirates and the other half were people caught up in something that they didn't understand," he said. "If I'd had a chance to have a conversation with them, they'd have gotten it."

Many of the pages of comments and complaints about Spore that filled Ars Technica's pages when this fire was still raging were written by people with a very solid grasp of the SecuROM technology and its limitations, and they completely rejected ideas like install limits for games they have purchased. Painting dissatisfied fans as pirates, or as ignoramuses, won't win anyone back.

What's sad about this situation is that EA has some wonderful games coming out: Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Warhammer Online. Gamers who pass up these titles will be voting with their wallets, but they will also be missing out on some solid titles. EA needs to show a little more humility and understanding in dealing with this issue. The people complaining and boycotting aren't pirates, they aren't ill-informed, and the company is losing money by not listening to them.

I really agree with what Ars is saying here. John Riccitiello wants to blame the protest of DRM on pirates. If I had a chance to talk to him i'd ask him why he thinks pirates would care about protesting DRM. I mean, why would pirates give two shits about DRM if aren't having to deal with it? Makes no sense at all.

I think he's hiding behind EA's true goal, which is to cripple the used market. Basically milk every last penny out of the people who are still buying EA's games. Instead of focusing on regaining customer trust and goodwill, they decide to do the same thing the music industry did.. Good luck with that.

Here's a link the the rest of the article.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...-skip-good-titles.html

Here's a link to the Gamasutra interview.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-b..._index.php?story=20655

 

[Bateluer]

Well, I'm definitely skipping those titles, so EA is losing my dollars.

 

[CrazyLazy]

DRM like that doesn't protect against online pirates, aka people who torrent it and a crack for it. What it does protect against is little Timmy sharing the game with his little friend Billy so they only need to buy one copy of the game. They realize they can't stop pirates in the traditional sense , but they can stop some idiot 8 year old from sharing the game. To be honest DRM limiting the number of installs I can have doesn't bother me, I only have one machine I use for gaming, which I think is true for most everybody except the vocal minority of people on the internet.

 

[Craig234]

I'd like to see gamers suggest a business solution to address the high rates of piracy.

I support their doing what they need to protect the industry so that good games continue to be made; I'm open to 'better' solutions.

If all they can say is 'wah wah DRM' and not offer any solution, then they are advocating what will result in a lot fewer good games being made for the PC.

It'll be one more reason to shift to the inferior (IMO) console platforms.

 

[Frodolives]

Wow, what an arrogant jerk! So publishers at the corporate level are ignorant about their market, and the consumer loses.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I support their doing what they need to protect the industry so that good games continue to be made; I'm open to 'better' solutions.

How about the solution of no DRM at all?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-b..._index.php?story=20026

 

[Maximilian]

I would love to bear mace that EA CEO... hate.. EA.. so.. friggin... much!! Ruined my c&c!!

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd like to see gamers suggest a business solution to address the high rates of piracy.

I support their doing what they need to protect the industry so that good games continue to be made; I'm open to 'better' solutions.

If all they can say is 'wah wah DRM' and not offer any solution, then they are advocating what will result in a lot fewer good games being made for the PC.

It'll be one more reason to shift to the inferior (IMO) console platforms.

Well gamers arent buisnessmen, and from what ive seen in general they come up with terrible solutions to things anyway. Ive read a lot of posts from amazon and their solutions to DRM range from pretty bad to batshit crazy.

The solutions are simple as they have already been thought up, they fall into 3 categories.

1. Steam - aka the valve solution

2. No DRM at all - aka the stardock solution

3. Make the game worth buying in the first friggin place, multiplayer and all - aka the blizzard solution

Also "wah wah DRM" is just as bad as "wah wah piracy" piracy is a problem and so is DRM, its meant to stop piracy... spore was the most pirated game ever so all it does is piss gamers off it sure as hell dosent stop piracy. EA need a better solution, but IMO they are incapable of developing one or taking up one of the already present solutions because they are a terrible company.

 

[Oakenfold]

Originally posted by: Frodolives
Wow, what an arrogant jerk! So publishers at the corporate level are ignorant about their market, and the consumer loses.

The majority of the market doesn't understand. It's your job to advocate to the masses why DRM is bad. But I agree with you, the people running the show have not figured out WTH is going on. :thumbsup:

When a company does figure it out, they better capitalize the hell out of it.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
What it does protect against is little Timmy sharing the game with his little friend Billy so they only need to buy one copy of the game. They realize they can't stop pirates in the traditional sense , but they can stop some idiot 8 year old from sharing the game.

A basic CD check does that equally well, which games had 10 years ago. Anyone who can bypass that can also get around the worst Securom implementations just as easily.

This is either a case of executives (who may not necessarily know a thing about computers) simply being ignorant and out of touch with reality, or more likely, to kill the used game market as the OP said.

 

[TallBill]

Easiest way to prevent piracy is have a major part of the game be online. Not necessarily an MMORPG, but somehow incorporate the internet. That or just digitally deliver and authenticate like steam or D2D. Most gamers have the internet anyways.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
DRM like that doesn't protect against online pirates, aka people who torrent it and a crack for it. What it does protect against is little Timmy sharing the game with his little friend Billy so they only need to buy one copy of the game. They realize they can't stop pirates in the traditional sense , but they can stop some idiot 8 year old from sharing the game. To be honest DRM limiting the number of installs I can have doesn't bother me, I only have one machine I use for gaming, which I think is true for most everybody except the vocal minority of people on the internet.

Remember this moment when you go to reinstall a game you bought with this DRM in a few years, a game you considered a work of art and want to experience multiple times. Oops! Your activations are gone because you've upgraded so many times, and the publisher no longer bothers with activation servers because its not cost effective.

The consumer loses.

 

[coloumb]

"I personally hate DRM,? EA CEO John Riccitiello tells Gamasutra. ?I don?t like the whole concept; it can be a little bit cumbersome. But I don?t like locks on my door, and I don?t like to use keys in my car? I?d like to live in a world where there are no passports. Unfortunately, we don?t ? and I think the vast majority of people voted with their wallets and went out and bought Spore.?

Alas - we live in a world where everyone is assumed guilty until proven innocent thanks to those who chose to ignore the laws.

Notice this part of the article?

?There are different ways to do DRM; the most successful is what WoW does. They just charge you by the month,? Riccitiello says, noting that the subscription model means that even those who pirate the software itself can?t play without paying."

I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing most if not all games evolve into a subscription based, advertised supported, or free to play business model [if you want upgrades in the free to play, you'll have to pay to get them] simply because publishers are tired of losing a huge amount of profits to pirating. I suspect the ear of the single player game is nearing it's end or as TallBill suggested - a major part of the game will require you to be online or connected to the internet.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Bateluer


Remember this moment when you go to reinstall a game you bought with this DRM in a few years, a game you considered a work of art and want to experience multiple times. Oops! Your activations are gone because you've upgraded so many times, and the publisher no longer bothers with activation servers because its not cost effective.

The consumer loses.

Exactly. I've already had a run in with DRM and Bioshock. I had to email Securom, and wait for more than a day to play the game I legally purchased, and only installed one time before. That was only months after release... WTH happens in 5 years when I want to grab some screenshots from Bioshock, and Securom is out of business(I hope). In any case it's BS that I have to wait more than minutes to play a game I payed $60 for. 36 hours is outrageous....

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd like to see gamers suggest a business solution to address the high rates of piracy.

I support their doing what they need to protect the industry so that good games continue to be made; I'm open to 'better' solutions.

If all they can say is 'wah wah DRM' and not offer any solution, then they are advocating what will result in a lot fewer good games being made for the PC.

It'll be one more reason to shift to the inferior (IMO) console platforms.

A solution?

Steam.

/thread

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd like to see gamers suggest a business solution to address the high rates of piracy.

I support their doing what they need to protect the industry so that good games continue to be made; I'm open to 'better' solutions.

If all they can say is 'wah wah DRM' and not offer any solution, then they are advocating what will result in a lot fewer good games being made for the PC.

It'll be one more reason to shift to the inferior (IMO) console platforms.

A solution?

Steam.

/thread

Steam isn't really a solution.

It has a lot of the limitations DRM has, but some are worse, and would only be amplified if all games were sold via steam.

Wanna let your friend play CS:S on your account while you play TF2?
You can't.

Another problem is most steam games cost the same as retail, which is dumb since the incredible disparity between a steam game and a retail game with CDs.

Why can I loan console games to my friends, but not do the same with my games on the PC.

Obviously you run into problems with people trying to play 5 copies of the same game at once, and that's what CDkeys are for IMO.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'd like to see gamers suggest a business solution to address the high rates of piracy.

I support their doing what they need to protect the industry so that good games continue to be made; I'm open to 'better' solutions.

If all they can say is 'wah wah DRM' and not offer any solution, then they are advocating what will result in a lot fewer good games being made for the PC.

It'll be one more reason to shift to the inferior (IMO) console platforms.

A solution?

Steam.

/thread

Steam isn't really a solution.

It has a lot of the limitations DRM has, but some are worse, and would only be amplified if all games were sold via steam.

Wanna let your friend play CS:S on your account while you play TF2?
You can't.

Another problem is most steam games cost the same as retail, which is dumb since the incredible disparity between a steam game and a retail game with CDs.

Why can I loan console games to my friends, but not do the same with my games on the PC.

Obviously you run into problems with people trying to play 5 copies of the same game at once, and that's what CDkeys are for IMO.

Steam is a solution with very little in your face DRM, install games as many times as you want, download games to any computer, etc.

Better then any other solution.

And the question was from a business standpoint anyways.

 

[lxskllr]

Steam makes me uneasy. I had issues with it when it first came out, and what happens 10 years from now if they're out of business? You could very well be SoL. Internet access shouldn't be a requirement to play a SP game anyway. Even MS has a toll free number to call to activate their products.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
Steam makes me uneasy. I had issues with it when it first came out, and what happens 10 years from now if they're out of business? You could very well be SoL. Internet access shouldn't be a requirement to play a SP game anyway. Even MS has a toll free number to call to activate their products.

Internet isn't a req to play sp?

lol


try stalker, for example?

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: videogames101


Internet isn't a req to play sp?

lol


try stalker, for example?

I don't understand what you're saying...

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: videogames101


Internet isn't a req to play sp?

lol


try stalker, for example?

I don't understand what you're saying...

I'm saying, I could launch steam without my ethernet cable plugged in and play a singleplayer game.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: videogames101


I'm saying, I could launch steam without my ethernet cable plugged in and play a singleplayer game.

You can't install it without net access.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: videogames101


I'm saying, I could launch steam without my ethernet cable plugged in and play a singleplayer game.

You can't install it without net access.

True, but at the same time, I can install it on as many computers as I want.

 

[mindcycle]

Just found this.. Pretty well said.

John Riccitiello hates DRM. That's the rather surprising pronouncement from the Electronic Arts CEO this week - surprising not because there's anything particularly likeable about DRM, but because of his own firm's immense attachment to the widely disliked (and utterly useless) technology.

Admittedly, Riccitiello's comments go a lot deeper than that convenient headline. Despite the fact that he "hates" DRM, he goes on to attempt to justify it - comparing it with locks on your door or other necessary evils which we all require for security.

The comparison is utterly flawed. Locks and keys are indeed a trade-off which we make between convenience and security, but they are designed to protect our own security - not that of the company that sold us the door. There is a real, tangible advantage to the person being inconvenienced. That doesn't exist with DRM.

Here's the rest of the editorial.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/a...les/hated-and-broken_0

 

[lupi]

lol, what a schmuck. Picked there highest profile title, idiot must have forgotten about that game called bioshock.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
Steam makes me uneasy. I had issues with it when it first came out, and what happens 10 years from now if they're out of business? You could very well be SoL. Internet access shouldn't be a requirement to play a SP game anyway. Even MS has a toll free number to call to activate their products.

There are those of us willing to compromise, and see Steam as that perfect compromise, and there are people like you, who won't be happy until the game doesn't have security at all. Which is fair enough, I just don't see it happening and would rather shoot for the compromise.

And Novastori's complaint is pretty weak too. You want to let your friends play your games. For instance, I have something like 40-50 games on Steam. So with your method of "security" I could have 40-50 playing games off of my account at a given time? Yea, that doesn't sound broken.

Granted, I could do something similar with a console. The problem is, my 40-50 friends would all needs the same console as me and then they'd all need to be nearby. Even then, there would be an inconvenience to me when loaning these all out and trying to keep track of them. Since Steam eliminates these inconveniences, letting anybody play your games would make it basically the easiest casual piracy mechanism ever developed by a company.