Spore / DRM / EA / PC Game Industry

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I know a couple people already who are choosing not to buy it due to DRM and are downloading it instead. They really wanted access to the online content and were willing to pay for it until they found out about this problem. They are not the kind of people who pirate most things either. They typically buy everything they want.

There is no doubt in my mind that EA would have made more money if they just stuck with the other methods of anti-piracy. As long as the usual rule of no online content with the pirated copy applies then that would have been enough since the game seems pretty cool and the online content is supposed to be worth paying for. They shot themselves in the foot here.

sorry, that line of thinking doesn't make sense. What is the problem the only 3 installs? Then buy it and pirate it after the DRM makes it unplayable. But to pirate it from the beginning the day of the release is just funny. People who have already pirated this game never intended to buy it, otherwise they would have at least waited to see if there were other ways around the DRM and still buy it.

One problem with 3 installs comes when you have people who wish to install the game for themselves on multiple computers such as their home PC as well as their laptop. Then you have the people who tend to upgrade often enough to the point where they will run out of installs too fast. New mobo = new install according to the DRM. While this sort of thing may not matter to you, it matters to many other people and these people should not be treated like criminals to do so.

The bottom line here is that EA knew this game would be pirated which is exactly what is happening. It happened before the release for that matter. The pirated copies have no access to online content as usual. The DRM has done nothing to reduce pirating. It is only harming the legit user while the pirates are getting the exact same thing that they usually get even when the traditional methods of anti-piracy that do not inconvenience the legit user as much are used. They are also getting what they usually get just as easily. So, what's the point? It's not like EA doesn't know that what I am saying is true. Why do they continue to inconvenience the user like this?

The best anti-piracy method out there is to create a quality game with online content/features which make the game worth paying for. They seem to have done that with Spore. Why go through all of that work only to shoot themselves in the foot by tossing in DRM which will do nothing but negatively impact sales?

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I know a couple people already who are choosing not to buy it due to DRM and are downloading it instead. They really wanted access to the online content and were willing to pay for it until they found out about this problem. They are not the kind of people who pirate most things either. They typically buy everything they want.

There is no doubt in my mind that EA would have made more money if they just stuck with the other methods of anti-piracy. As long as the usual rule of no online content with the pirated copy applies then that would have been enough since the game seems pretty cool and the online content is supposed to be worth paying for. They shot themselves in the foot here.

sorry, that line of thinking doesn't make sense. What is the problem the only 3 installs? Then buy it and pirate it after the DRM makes it unplayable. But to pirate it from the beginning the day of the release is just funny. People who have already pirated this game never intended to buy it, otherwise they would have at least waited to see if there were other ways around the DRM and still buy it.

One problem with 3 installs comes when you have people who wish to install the game for themselves on multiple computers such as their home PC as well as their laptop. Then you have the people who tend to upgrade often enough to the point where they will run out of installs too fast. New mobo = new install according to the DRM. While this sort of thing may not matter to you, it matters to many other people and these people should not be treated like criminals to do so.

The bottom line here is that EA knew this game would be pirated which is exactly what is happening. It happened before the release for that matter. The pirated copies have no access to online content as usual. The DRM has done nothing to reduce pirating. It is only harming the legit user while the pirates are getting the exact same thing that they usually get even when the traditional methods of anti-piracy that do not inconvenience the legit user as much are used. They are also getting what they usually get just as easily. So, what's the point? It's not like EA doesn't know that what I am saying is true. Why do they continue to inconvenience the user like this?

The best anti-piracy method out there is to create a quality game with online content/features which make the game worth paying for. They seem to have done that with Spore. Why go through all of that work only to shoot themselves in the foot by tossing in DRM which will do nothing but negatively impact sales?

I fully agree that EA made a mistake with this stupid DRM. I don't like it, but I also wanted to play the game so I bought it. What I was arguing is people who say they pirated it because of the DRM, these people would have pirated it anyway.

I still hope they will take off some of this DRM, mainly the 3 installs one. I am in that group, have a laptop and PC and want it on both. But don't want to run out of installs right away.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
I fully agree that EA made a mistake with this stupid DRM. I don't like it, but I also wanted to play the game so I bought it. What I was arguing is people who say they pirated it because of the DRM, these people would have pirated it anyway.

I still hope they will take off some of this DRM, mainly the 3 installs one. I am in that group, have a laptop and PC and want it on both. But don't want to run out of installs right away.

Well, I can't speak for those who pirated the game for the sake of making a statement. It doesn't really bother me because it is not me who doing something illegal and while EA may not change anything I doubt that their voices will fall upon completely deaf ears. At the very least, EA will not forget entirely. One can only hope that it actually proves to damage their profits so we can see some real action take place.

As far as the guys I know, they downloaded the game for three reasons. First, they didn't want to pay money because they felt it supported EA's use of DRM. Second, the inconveniences I mentioned above involving multiple computers and upgrades. Third, it was basically a compromise for their desire to play the game although it was an illegal one. The compromise is that they get to play the game on as many computers as they wish till the end of time at the sacrifice of online content and infringing upon copyright protection. In other words, they are getting exactly what everyone has been getting from pirated copies of games for over a decade now.

If the game was truly outstanding to the point where they believed that it was worth paying for multiple copies then that is exactly what they would do, but that is just not the case. EA lost money by making this decision. Everyone loses in this situation except the pirates. The pirates break even.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Regs
Ok, I really try to keep my cool around here but this bloated *pull it out the ass* conscious irritates me. Please don't take it personnel, because this seems to be the general view of many. Some of you arm chair marketers think the people who pirate are not potential customers. However, you seem to neglect how our economy works. It's called opportunity costs. One must give up one thing, to buy the other. If that person no longer has to give up that one thing or many things to buy, in this case Spore, then that was a potential buyer lost. For example; Regs had to give up driving for 1 day of the week for 4 weeks so he could buy Spore. However, if Regs can pirate the game, he can still drive as he normally does. What would you do?

You want to break the law, and then justify it for your own moral gain, be my guest. Though you will not have my sympathy if you get caught.

Some of those pirates would be potential sales, but most would not. Many of those pirates will pirate for the sake of piracy. Some won't even play the game.

It's not the destination, but the journey that causes some of these people to pirate.

In any case, there is no reason to assume that all pirated copies = money lost, because that's moronic

Also, basic economic theories often do not take piracy into account. You can't use econ 101 lessons when talking about piracy, like you have attempted.

Eeezee is right. Many pirates do simply pirate for the sake of pirating. I used to be one of those people. I had HD's full of games I never even installed.

Just because you have to give up something to be able to afford the game doesn't automatically mean that if you didn't have to give up anything you would pirate the game. People also have morals, and they will decide whether or not a product or company is worth supporting based on those morals.. even if they have option of getting it for free.

Take me for example. I'm not buying the game because of the DRM. I'm also not going to pirate it either. I did have the thought of buying the game about a year ago before anyone knew about this new SecuROM activation based DRM because it looked like an interesting concept. I bought Mass Effect when it came out only to experience constant crashes caused by SecuROM being on my system. I wanted to support bioware and their great game, but ended up just being frustrated that I tired going the legit route. I can't sell the game and now it just sits there in the box mocking me. That's why i'm no longer supporting EA.

If EA wants to sell more copies they will eventually have to realize that putting roadblocks in front of their legit customers will do nothing but decrease sales. We all know the DRM did nothing to stop the game from being pirated, so why further damage potential sales by treating every customer like a criminal?

What they need to do is give people greater incentive to buy the game. They did this with mass effect by taking off $10 if you pre-ordered the game and access to DLC with your serial number. That was a big reason I bought the game. It was a good idea that was outweighed by the hassles of the DRM system.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
One problem with 3 installs comes when you have people who wish to install the game for themselves on multiple computers such as their home PC as well as their laptop. Then you have the people who tend to upgrade often enough to the point where they will run out of installs too fast. New mobo = new install according to the DRM. While this sort of thing may not matter to you, it matters to many other people and these people should not be treated like criminals to do so.

The bottom line here is that EA knew this game would be pirated which is exactly what is happening. It happened before the release for that matter. The pirated copies have no access to online content as usual. The DRM has done nothing to reduce pirating. It is only harming the legit user while the pirates are getting the exact same thing that they usually get even when the traditional methods of anti-piracy that do not inconvenience the legit user as much are used. They are also getting what they usually get just as easily. So, what's the point? It's not like EA doesn't know that what I am saying is true. Why do they continue to inconvenience the user like this?

The best anti-piracy method out there is to create a quality game with online content/features which make the game worth paying for. They seem to have done that with Spore. Why go through all of that work only to shoot themselves in the foot by tossing in DRM which will do nothing but negatively impact sales?

I disagree - I'm sure its prevented a massive amount of people of giving the disc to their friends/family and sharing the game with them, due to the limited installs. This game can be played offline after all (just like ME and Bioshock).

The DRM is working *as intended*, and working quite well. It was never meant to stop it from hitting the torrents - if that was the case, they would have disabled it the second it did, as it would then be pointless protection just there to annoy their consumers.

Whether or not they come out ahead in the end due to lost sales because of the very public whipping it's getting is another story, but lets not kid ourselves - the DRM works beautifully.

Theyre just trying to distract the average consumer by pointing at the torrent devil (and apparently, its working quite well), but the target is the average, casual consumer.

I'm not the average casual consumer though, and I'm not touching this POS until the DRM is stripped out. I'm incredibly pleased to see the DRM get so much negative attention on amazon and the blogosphere.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I disagree - I'm sure its prevented a massive amount of people of giving the disc to their friends/family and sharing the game with them, due to the limited installs. This game can be played offline after all (just like ME and Bioshock).

The DRM is working *as intended*, and working quite well. It was never meant to stop it from hitting the torrents - if that was the case, they would have disabled it the second it did, as it would then be pointless protection just there to annoy their consumers.

I have to disagree. Sure, it stops casual pirating, but a simple cd check would have accomplished that. The online activation is an attempt to stop piracy altogether. Why would they spend extra money on SecuROM, activation servers, etc, if all they wanted to do was stop casual pirating?

Take for example, Mass Effect. It uses the same DRM scheme as Spore but wasn't cracked for a few weeks. EA was probably hoping the same thing wouldn't happen with Spore, but they either didn't have the time to properly redesign the DRM, or simply thought it would follow the same trend. If they were to remove the protection the second it hit torrents then they would be admitting that they made a mistake including the DRM in the first place. Which would be equally as bad press if not more so than what they are getting right now.

Originally posted by: BD2003
I'm not the average casual consumer though, and I'm not touching this POS until the DRM is stripped out. I'm incredibly pleased to see the DRM get so much negative attention on amazon and the blogosphere.

I'm 100% with you on that.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
I have to disagree. Sure, it stops casual pirating, but a simple cd check would have accomplished that. The online activation is an attempt to stop piracy altogether. Why would they spend extra money on SecuROM, activation servers, etc, if all they wanted to do was stop casual pirating?

A simple cd-check is one thing, but a disc can be passed around after youre done. They dont want you lending or selling the game at all. They want EVERYONE to buy it. You cant even have two accounts for the same game (http://www.destructoid.com/blo...-says-ea-102729.phtml) - if your SO wants to keep her stuff separate from yours, thats another $50!

They spend all this money on stopping casual pirating because unlike mass piracy (bittorrent, etc), they can actually do something about this. Pirates will pirate. But if I'm done with a game, and I want to lend it to a friend (who obviously has to install it), is that piracy? Just about everyone would say no, but no matter how you slice it, having the friend borrow instead of buy = one less potential sale, so they want to stop it. This also effectively destroys the secondary used game market for spore.

Take for example, Mass Effect. It uses the same DRM scheme as Spore but wasn't cracked for a few weeks. EA was probably hoping the same thing wouldn't happen with Spore, but they either didn't have the time to properly redesign the DRM, or simply thought it would follow the same trend.

I dont buy it. The pirates have ALWAYS won this battle. EA didnt become the huge corporation they are by hiring stupid people that make stupid decisions - theyre balancing the cost of aggravating customers with the amount of sales theyll lose due to casual piracy (potential lost sales), or due to trading/reselling (absolutely lost sales). They figure its worth it. It may very well be. But are they going to come out and say it? Of course not, theyve got the perfect scapegoat of pirates to make you swallow and accept their bullshit as necessity.

If they were to remove the protection the second it hit torrents then they would be admitting that they made a mistake including the DRM in the first place. Which would be equally as bad press if not more so than what they are getting right now.

Their admission they made a mistake, and proof that theyre willing to do right by their customers would be far less negative than the press theyre getting now, and it would essentially cease the discussion. People would be satisfied. I'd go out and buy the game.

This isnt about pride, this is about swindling their paying customers and having them believe its for the greater good. Its a total sham, and I hope every single game they latch this activation bullshit too gets a single star.

IMO theyre so incredibly short sighted here - the super casual gamer who goes out and buys this to find out they can no longer install it is going to be so burned its not going to go back on EA, as they'd likely be oblivious to the publisher in the first place. Its going to reflect bad on PC gaming as a whole, and however many sales of spore they might get now, I'm positive its going to hurt them, and everyone else who makes PC games even more in the long run.

This is *exactly* the kind of reason I've stopped caring about PC gaming, and if this is now the standard DRM to expect with all new games, I'm just done with it.

 

[KeypoX]

i tried it, it seriously sucks! 3/10

 

[SirFelixCat]

I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Xavier434
One problem with 3 installs comes when you have people who wish to install the game for themselves on multiple computers such as their home PC as well as their laptop. Then you have the people who tend to upgrade often enough to the point where they will run out of installs too fast. New mobo = new install according to the DRM. While this sort of thing may not matter to you, it matters to many other people and these people should not be treated like criminals to do so.

The bottom line here is that EA knew this game would be pirated which is exactly what is happening. It happened before the release for that matter. The pirated copies have no access to online content as usual. The DRM has done nothing to reduce pirating. It is only harming the legit user while the pirates are getting the exact same thing that they usually get even when the traditional methods of anti-piracy that do not inconvenience the legit user as much are used. They are also getting what they usually get just as easily. So, what's the point? It's not like EA doesn't know that what I am saying is true. Why do they continue to inconvenience the user like this?

The best anti-piracy method out there is to create a quality game with online content/features which make the game worth paying for. They seem to have done that with Spore. Why go through all of that work only to shoot themselves in the foot by tossing in DRM which will do nothing but negatively impact sales?

I disagree - I'm sure its prevented a massive amount of people of giving the disc to their friends/family and sharing the game with them, due to the limited installs. This game can be played offline after all (just like ME and Bioshock).

The DRM is working *as intended*, and working quite well. It was never meant to stop it from hitting the torrents - if that was the case, they would have disabled it the second it did, as it would then be pointless protection just there to annoy their consumers.

Whether or not they come out ahead in the end due to lost sales because of the very public whipping it's getting is another story, but lets not kid ourselves - the DRM works beautifully.

Theyre just trying to distract the average consumer by pointing at the torrent devil (and apparently, its working quite well), but the target is the average, casual consumer.

I'm not the average casual consumer though, and I'm not touching this POS until the DRM is stripped out. I'm incredibly pleased to see the DRM get so much negative attention on amazon and the blogosphere.

That doesn't make much sense at all. EA is a business. They don't care about slandering bit torrent for the sake of slandering it. The bottom line here is money and that is DRM's only purpose. If they are losing money by using it, which is the case with Spore, then DRM is not working as intended. It's that simple.

If you want to talk about copyright protection which prevents users from "giving the disc to their friends/family and sharing the game with them" then we can start discussing the older security methods designed to protect from this sort of thing which did not inconvenience the user anywhere near as much as DRM does.

There is no winning argument here. DRM is a method of trying to control piracy. It is a way to try and increase sales. There are plenty of other methods out there which have proven to produce the exact same results of today's current DRM. The only two extra things that DRM is doing is further inconveniencing the user and causing pubs like EA to lose sales.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
That doesn't make much sense at all. EA is a business. They don't care about slandering bit torrent for the sake of slandering it. The bottom line here is money and that is DRM's only purpose. If they are losing money by using it, which is the case with Spore, then DRM is not working as intended. It's that simple.

You clearly did not read what I wrote. I'm sure nothing in the world pisses them off more than bittorrent and mass piracy, but they simply do not have an effective weapon to combat it, but that does not mean that the DRM is still useless to them. Like you said, EA is a business, and theyre doing this for business reasons.

If you want to talk about copyright protection which prevents users from "giving the disc to their friends/family and sharing the game with them" then we can start discussing the older security methods designed to protect from this sort of thing which did not inconvenience the user anywhere near as much as DRM does.

Like?

There is no winning argument here. DRM is a method of trying to control piracy. It is a way to try and increase sales. There are plenty of other methods out there which have proven to produce the exact same results of today's current DRM. The only two extra things that DRM is doing is further inconveniencing the user and causing pubs like EA to lose sales.

I personally believe as well that the DRM does more harm than good to their sales, bottom line, and overall business. But they believe otherwise, and I'm sure theyve got people who crunch these numbers for a living that have much a better handle on it.

Whats great about this particular situation is that it isnt confined to forums and gamer blogs - when the product gets slammed this hard on amazon its incredibly public. This is the kind of thing that scares the non-techie, that didnt realize DRM was that bad. If this continues, we might see some positive change after all.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Like?

There is software out there which is capable of detecting whether or not an original disk or emulation software (Daemon) is being used. Combine that with a CD Key and online checks for authentication when the user wishes to play the online content and you are good to go. I realize that getting a crack which breaks this security is just a hop and a skip away, but people who use cracks these days also use bit torrent which means that despite the lack of effectiveness this old security is still the better way to go. One negatively effects sales more than the other and this security is all about the sales and nothing else.

Originally posted by: BD2003
I personally believe as well that the DRM does more harm than good to their sales, bottom line, and overall business. But they believe otherwise, and I'm sure theyve got people who crunch these numbers for a living that have much a better handle on it.

Whats great about this particular situation is that it isnt confined to forums and gamer blogs - when the product gets slammed this hard on amazon its incredibly public. This is the kind of thing that scares the non-techie, that didnt realize DRM was that bad. If this continues, we might see some positive change after all.

I agree with your points about publicity which is nice to start seeing finally. However, when it comes to the number crunchers, I will bet dollars to donuts that part of the reason those guys keep trying to "sell" DRM to their execs as the greatest thing since sliced bread is because they want to keep their jobs and they don't have any real solution to present.

 

[Anubis]

Xavier: IIRC someone did make a game that checked for Disk EMU software like Daemon and if you had it installed would not let you run that game, that caused a huge shitstorm as well

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: mindcycle

Originally posted by: wanderer27
Wow, the Spore DRM is getting totally hammered on Amazon today.

It's been reported that Amazon UK has actually gone in and deleted all the reviews.
There's only one up right now on the UK site versus well over 400 (at present) on the US site.

This might get interesting on the DRM side of things.

I'm tempted to register just to add my DRM opposition to this . . . .

Wow. I just read through some of the Spore reviews on Amazon. I'm really happy to see that. I hope EA will take notice and address these concerns as it seems there is a pretty large number of people not buying the game because of the DRM.

Heh theres a rumor that the reviews were deleted at EA's request.... Considering what EA did with wikipedia there may be truth behind it.

Amazon has a policy of deleting non-review reviews. EA possibly just brought it to their attention.
There was that woman's book which got hammered with 1 star reviews and they all got pulled too.
It's a thing which Amazon has (justifiably) done before. The anti-DRM "reviews" aren't reviews of the game, they are posts complaining about something, mostly made by people who refuse to buy the thing because of it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Anubis
Xavier: IIRC someone did make a game that checked for Disk EMU software like Daemon and if you had it installed would not let you run that game, that caused a huge shitstorm as well

Yes, but it didn't effect sales and it didn't inconvenience the user to this level. The point is that the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. They can keep trying and trying to limit pirating, but all they are doing is just shooting themselves and especially the legit customer in the foot by trying to do it through the use of DRM.

 

[wanderer27]

I remember some of the old Copy Protection schemes they used to use.

Some of them made your Disk Drive sound like they were grinding gravel or something - that couldn't have been good for the Drives.
I surely don't want to see anything like that come back into practice.



On Amazon, the review count should surpass the 2,000 mark before too much longer, probably just a few minutes from now.



I just got finished sending a letter to the EFF alerting them to what is going on, and in it I mentioned the similarities between SecuROM and the rootkit Sony was prosecuted for a while back.

Actually, I'm not even certain this is something that they would normally get involved in or care about, so I may be way out in left field here on this one.

 

[PingSpike]

These current copy protection schemes are so terrible I'd prefer if they brought back the dongles instead. At least they you don't have to worry about your game disappearing because you reinstalled windows or switched users.

Then EA could release "booster" dongles and every time you wanted to play BF2 you could string a chain of 45 USB devices from your computer.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: BD2003
A simple cd-check is one thing, but a disc can be passed around after youre done. They dont want you lending or selling the game at all. They want EVERYONE to buy it. You cant even have two accounts for the same game (http://www.destructoid.com/blo...-says-ea-102729.phtml) - if your SO wants to keep her stuff separate from yours, thats another $50!

They spend all this money on stopping casual pirating because unlike mass piracy (bittorrent, etc), they can actually do something about this. Pirates will pirate. But if I'm done with a game, and I want to lend it to a friend (who obviously has to install it), is that piracy? Just about everyone would say no, but no matter how you slice it, having the friend borrow instead of buy = one less potential sale, so they want to stop it. This also effectively destroys the secondary used game market for spore.

Sorry, but it seems obvious that they are trying to stop all piracy, not just casual piracy. Mass Effect, using the same DRM, did effectively stop "all" piracy for about two weeks. There have been games, specifically starforce protected games, that have never been cracked. Casual pirating is a big concern for these companies, sure, but it's not their only concern. I'm sure they realize that most protection schemes will eventually be cracked. That still doesn't mean they aren't going to try and find one that will.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Their admission they made a mistake, and proof that theyre willing to do right by their customers would be far less negative than the press theyre getting now, and it would essentially cease the discussion. People would be satisfied. I'd go out and buy the game.

After thinking about it again, I agree with your reasoning here. I do think it would be more positive than the press they are getting now. It would also mean they would have to admit that they screwed up for at least two games now. Typically big companies don't like doing that. If that did happen I may very well go out and buy the game as well. Lets keep our fingers crossed.

 

[mindcycle]

Here's an interesting site that deals with DRM issues. http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/

Looks like the guy has done his research.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Here's an interesting site that deals with DRM issues. http://www.reclaimyourgame.com/

Looks like the guy has done his research.

Yeah, that's the Site that also shows how to remove SecuROM - it's on one of the side-links.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

I can't argue with that because it does work in that sense. The lack of DRM doesn't kill console game sales though even though used games get sold that way all of the time. Why do it with PC games? Me thinks the core problem has nothing to do with pirating or reselling, but that is opening up doors to many other things that are probably way off topic.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

Steam stops resales, but you don't hear people bitching about that too much.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

I can't argue with that because it does work in that sense. The lack of DRM doesn't kill console game sales though even though used games get sold that way all of the time. Why do it with PC games? Me thinks the core problem has nothing to do with pirating or reselling, but that is opening up doors to many other things that are probably way off topic.

Removing/ruining the resale market is definitely one benefit of this DRM system, but it's not the only one. The details are secondary to the overall goal, which is to increase sales thus increasing profit for the company. That's their main objective.

The below interview does back up the whole "killing off the resale market" issue, as it comes from the CEO of EA himself.

http://www.reclaimyourgame.com...rticle&id=75&Itemid=44

God, I hate EA..

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: SirFelixCat
I've read that the real point to DRM is to ruin/remove the resale market and force people to buy from the company, not second hand (ala ebay/Gamestop).

Ding ! Ding! We have a winner!

Piracy cannot be stopped, but this DRM effectively stops resales with the 3 install limit.

Steam stops resales, but you don't hear people bitching about that too much.

You know, that's a really good point that I haven't really given a whole lot of thought too.

Other than being more convenient, is a Steam version cheaper or have any other advantages over a hardcopy?