Mass Effect DRM - taking aim at Sale of Used Games?

dig314

Member
Jan 18, 2005
53
0
0
From what I understand of the DRM scheme included with Mass Effect, it limits the number of unique PC installs. I do not own the game, nor do I personally know anyone who owns the PC version. I stopped trying to read all the threads on the Bioware forums about the DRM. Most threads get "locked down" for being off topic. Plus it is so hard to tell fact from fiction. I don't know if EA will help someone who buys a used copy of the game that has all 3 unique installs already activated.

To me, this DRM scheme is licensing. I don't know what gamers can do about it. The purpose of this seems to limit the resaling of the item. At least with Commercial software, what you are paying for is normally a non-transferable "license" to use the software under specified terms. You don't own the software - you can't resale it to someone else. In a way, you are renting the software.

Unless someone challenges EA ( game publishers in general ) in court, I guess it is legally their right to limit how the consumer uses a game. At minimum, a game with this restrictive licensing should clearly state on the outside of the box that you are buying a non-transferable license to use the game. You are not buying a game. You are buying the right to use the game.

I have never purchased a digital download of a game. My guess is they work the same way. Once you download it, it is yours to use - as long as you don't lose the download / activation key / whatever. I assume you can't sale or transfer it to someone else.

Why do I care, and why does EA care? Well, they should know they can't stop piracy. Regardless of what any study says, reduced piracy does not mean increased sales. But what if they can legally stop the resale of their merchandise? This would lead to more sales. When I buy a game used off of eBay, it doesn't help the game publisher. - Technically, maybe the person who bought it new for $50 told their wife, "but honey, I can finish the game and sell it on eBay for $20. So the it REALLY only costs $30. See? " So maybe knowing you can resale a game slightly increases original sales. For me, if I can't buy a used copy of Mass Effect that I KNOW will work, I will eventually buy a new copy.

I will start another thread on why the gaming industry hates me for buying used games and doesn't hate the pirates who also buy new games.

Dig
 

mindcycle

Golden Member
Jan 9, 2008
1,901
0
76
Until publishers realize that people who pirate games aren't potential customers anyway, they will continue to come up with asinine copy protection schemes like they did with Bioshock, Mass Effect, Alone in the Dark, etc, etc, etc.. The ones who will continue to get screwed are the people who buy the games.

 

thujone

Golden Member
Jun 15, 2003
1,158
0
71
haven't been able to play mass effect in WEEKS.


close to shelving/throwing it away.


doing a raindance for a patch
 

RS8

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
202
0
71
I haven't played it since I finished the game then promptly traded it to someone for COD4 lol... so I'm not sure how things went since a) he wanted to get rid of cod4 because his PC couldn't handle it (not sure what makes him think he can run ME) and b) he recently put it up for sale.
 

Ganeedi

Senior member
Jul 7, 2008
258
0
0
In theory if you exceed the number of installs, you can call EA support and they will authorize more.

Now, it would be interesting to hear what they say if you tell them you bought it used.

Has anyone tried this and successfully gotten more installs authorized?
 

astrosfan315

Golden Member
Nov 27, 2002
1,406
2
81
I pretty much stay away from any game that came out on a console first. Simultaneous release (such as COD4) is one thing..but buy a pc game that was originally on the 360 (assassin's creed, mass effect) forget it.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: astrosfan315
I pretty much stay away from any game that came out on a console first. Simultaneous release (such as COD4) is one thing..but buy a pc game that was originally on the 360 (assassin's creed, mass effect) forget it.

Uh, Mass Effect is better on the PC than on the 360 (minus the DRM) and they rewrote much of the UI for the PC version.
http://news.bigdownload.com/20...ig-versus-mass-effect/
 

mindcycle

Golden Member
Jan 9, 2008
1,901
0
76
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: astrosfan315
I pretty much stay away from any game that came out on a console first. Simultaneous release (such as COD4) is one thing..but buy a pc game that was originally on the 360 (assassin's creed, mass effect) forget it.

Uh, Mass Effect is better on the PC than on the 360 (minus the DRM) and they rewrote much of the UI for the PC version.
http://news.bigdownload.com/20...ig-versus-mass-effect/

Lets hope that trend continues. Right now i'd say "most" ports are garbage. So many developers have dug themselves into a hole by releasing shitty ports, so it's going to take a while to change people's minds.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,039
136
Yeah, I very strongly suspect that a big, unspoken, reason for all this DRM stuff (and the reason why developers like the Steam model of distribution) is not about piracy at all, its to kill the second hand market. Even if you don't buy 2nd hand games, the existence of such a market must have a downward effect on the price of older games. Without the second hand market I suspect budget label reissued games would be a bit pricier also. There's now a long list of games I wouldn't dare buy second hand, in case they turn out to be uninstallable.

I also worry that if they could possibly get away with it they will start charging per 'play'. Fire up the game, it phones home and charges 50c to your account.
 

Chosonman

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2005
1,136
0
0
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6145864.html

Interesting read on copy protection model that Stardock used for Galactic Civilations II. The article is kind of old and I don't know how successful/unsuccessful the game was due to piracy but Brad Wardell the head of Stardock made some interesting points:

GS: Why did Stardock opt not to use traditional industry-accepted forms of copy protection?

BW: It's only industry-accepted in the PC game industry--the industry that people are regularly saying is "doomed." Most of our business is in the application software market (the market that no one argues is "doomed"), and such copy protection measures are not used. I don't have to keep my Adobe Photoshop CD in the drive to use it.

We simply applied the PC application software model of IP protection to our games--release the game with no CD-based copy protection and include a unique serial number that they need to use in order to obtain updates.

What we do is take feedback from our customers and release free updates to our games. Since we have a database of every serial number that's been issued, we can control who has access to those updates. By releasing frequent, convenient, free updates, we reward people for buying the game.

What other publishers do to protect their intellectual property is up to them. I simply don't [think] CD-based protection is particularly effective. Any copy protection system, in my opinion, should be focused on trying to increase sales--not stop piracy. The two aren't the same. Most people who pirate a software product would never have purchased it. It's pointless to waste time on those people. The people to focus on are the ones who might have bought your product or service but chose not to because it was easier to pirate it.

Most serious PC gamers have had cases where they've lost a CD or damaged it. They resent not being able to play the game because on top of the game using gigabytes of disk space...it's also treating their CD-ROM drive as an expensive dongle key.

As a result, the question is, how many legitimate gamers choose not to buy a game that has CD protection because they're on the fence and know that sooner or later, they'll probably lose that CD? For us, that's the underlying question--do we gain more sales from gamers who were on the fence but decided to buy the game because they didn't have to worry about losing/damaging a CD than we lost through piracy?
 

wanderer27

Platinum Member
Aug 6, 2005
2,173
15
81
Originally posted by: Chosonman
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6145864.html

Interesting read on copy protection model that Stardock used for Galactic Civilations II. The article is kind of old and I don't know how successful/unsuccessful the game was due to piracy but Brad Wardell the head of Stardock made some interesting points:

GS: Why did Stardock opt not to use traditional industry-accepted forms of copy protection?

BW: It's only industry-accepted in the PC game industry--the industry that people are regularly saying is "doomed." Most of our business is in the application software market (the market that no one argues is "doomed"), and such copy protection measures are not used. I don't have to keep my Adobe Photoshop CD in the drive to use it.

We simply applied the PC application software model of IP protection to our games--release the game with no CD-based copy protection and include a unique serial number that they need to use in order to obtain updates.

What we do is take feedback from our customers and release free updates to our games. Since we have a database of every serial number that's been issued, we can control who has access to those updates. By releasing frequent, convenient, free updates, we reward people for buying the game.

What other publishers do to protect their intellectual property is up to them. I simply don't [think] CD-based protection is particularly effective. Any copy protection system, in my opinion, should be focused on trying to increase sales--not stop piracy. The two aren't the same. Most people who pirate a software product would never have purchased it. It's pointless to waste time on those people. The people to focus on are the ones who might have bought your product or service but chose not to because it was easier to pirate it.

Most serious PC gamers have had cases where they've lost a CD or damaged it. They resent not being able to play the game because on top of the game using gigabytes of disk space...it's also treating their CD-ROM drive as an expensive dongle key.

As a result, the question is, how many legitimate gamers choose not to buy a game that has CD protection because they're on the fence and know that sooner or later, they'll probably lose that CD? For us, that's the underlying question--do we gain more sales from gamers who were on the fence but decided to buy the game because they didn't have to worry about losing/damaging a CD than we lost through piracy?


It is so amazing to actually see a Game Company that has a clue.

I bought Gal Civ II and Sins of a Solar Empire from this Company. I've barely touched GC II, and I haven't even played Sins yet (and I've had it a couple months).

This is the way it should be done.
Give me a damn CD Key to register for a legitimate reason (more goodies etc.), and quit abusing both me and my Hardware ! ! ! ! !

There are a handful of games out that I'm interested in buying, but with the current protection schemes (DRM/SecureRom) I'm not going to touch them.
Hell, my son even got a free copy of the Spore Creature tool (some kind of promotional thing), and I just tossed it in the corner still wrapped up.