-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Spore will have DRM - deemed "Necessary"
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
But how would you know? Most publishers use DRM in one form or another. Your entire post is nothing but conjecture (and full of fail)
Hard drives fail. Systems are upgraded. If I want to play Spore in 3 years (I upgrade an average of once per year) using a legit copy, I won't be able to, and THAT is bullshit. Would you buy a toaster that was guaranteed to stop working after 3 years?
So you can only be angry if this bullshit personally affects you? You have no empathy at all? I'm not going to support a product that screws a fraction of its customers for no reason, even if it's less than 0.1%. I didn't buy Bioshock because it implemented DRM - what of it? As a consumer, you only get to vote with your wallet. That is the only way these companies will ever get rid of DRM. Companies that ignore the issue will eventually die if they don't start using more reasonable DRM policies.
KaOTiK
Lifer
Well you did say "I'll be pirating this one unless they remove this Draconian DRM bullshit." and the whole tone of it you made it pretty clear you wouldn't actually purchase the product.
I agree, speak with your wallet though. As much as I want to get Spore I will be so busy with Warhammer that I am simply going to wait till the game is like half price and hopefully by then the DRM will be taken care of. If not, I'll buy it and hope it works fine, if not I'll resort to downloading it to sadly get my legal copy to work.
But once you get past the annoyance you start playing the game and if it's a good game then your forget all about it.
I'm not supporting DRM, I don't like DRM, but I'm not sacrificing what appears to be a perfectly good game for such a small thing, who knows, Spore might actually get it right (doubtful but it may happen.
Publishers do know that piracy happens and their DRM is futile but at least they give their shareholders a sense of security, even if it's false. Besides if they forgo their DRM, they won't be able to bitch about "poor sales" and blame piracy. Remember, the big corporations like EA think of it as a business, I wouldn't be surprised if a large majority of EA employees simply hated games.
I'm actually not that excited about Spore though so I'll keep an eye on the reviews, the creature creator hyped me down so much, I'm just keeping it as a possible prospect but if it does turn out to be the great game it's poised to be then I'm not going to deprive myself of fun just because of a little DRM.
Ugh, please no. I absolutely hate CD-checks. And if Punkbuster considers a no-cd crack a cheat then you've just been shitted on doubly if you try to go that route.
Like many people here I don't have a problem with the way that Steam does things because I don't get hassled. Of course, if EA tried to develop their own version of Steam I'm sure they'd find a way to screw it up completely. They should just make more of their products available through it since I doubt they are capable of producing anything comparable.
Rinaun
Golden Member
They did. It was called EAlink or some sh1t. It possibly was the WORST download managing program EVER. I had to download the same bf2 booster pack 4 times because of corrupt data. That, and when it ran it takes up more computer performance than steam; yet does 10x less.
The reason to have cd checks is because without them multiplayer games would be pirated with super ease. Usually its done by punkbuster. Notice how pirating BF2, doom 3 multiplayer results in no multiplayer.
LittleNemoNES
Diamond Member
I wish more companies would use Steam. IMO Steam is the online game distribution savior.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
As long as they have a way to deactivate an install, who cares? (Do they?) Just use your due diligence. Honestly, I couldn't see installing it on more than maybe 2 machines at a time anyway (desktop & laptop). If you have and actively use more than 3 machines to game on, you need to get a life and get outside more.
EvilComputer92
Golden Member
You shouldn't have to deal with it, but the reason DRM is there is so corporate execs are able to pretend to shareholders that they are fighting piracy.
It takes about a minute at most to search for a game crack and extract it. If you think taking that time is worth depriving you of the whole game, it's not. As long as DRM exists in any form, there will be cracks.
Writing email to companies and not buying their games does absolutley nothing. These companies are so massive that a few hundred sales lost because of DRM means very little. Voting with your wallet does nothing other than leave you without a game you want, because the company cares very little about a few sales lost. For every person that boycotts a game there are another 50 who buy it without knowing that DRM is even in the product. Not to mention that usually the devs end up getting hurt the most because the rest of the company is making tons of money through selling the latest Madden to the sheep who buy the same game over and over at full price.
ViviTheMage
Lifer
This is what I thought...not sure what is so appealing about Spore.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
The second it came out for counter strike I was happy and impressed how it is distributed.
i wish all games came via STEAM.
Maximilian
Lifer
Oh well... I actually was considering buying this, breaking my no more EA game stance just this once. But i guess ill mail some cash to will wright and torrent it.
wanderer27
Platinum Member
I don't like DRM - period.
I paid for the game, I should be able to install it on MY machine as many times as I like.
I don't mind a CD Key check, hell, I'd probably even consent to looking up a fricking word in a manual.
Install limits?
BS - that relegates this to a rental.
Next you say I have to install a Rootkit (SecuROM)?
Sorry, that goes way way way way way waaayyyyy over the line.
I've got one game that I'd still be playing occasionally, but I can't anymore.
The DRM incorporated on the CD (older version of SecuROM I believe) just won't let it to work.
Oh it'll install fine, but go do the CD check and it fails to start (CD not in Drive error) - and it happens will multiple Drives.
If this wasn't EA we're talking about, the Server Authentication might even be tolerable, but it is and their track record speaks volumes.
Here's a novel idea:
1.) Remove the Rootkit.
2.) Drop the install limit.
3.) Change the Authentication scheme to not a requirement but optional for bonus content.
4.) Include a Backup CD/DVD of the game so I don't need to make a backup.
Do these EA, and we could probably do business.
I paid for the game, I should be able to install it on MY machine as many times as I like.
I don't mind a CD Key check, hell, I'd probably even consent to looking up a fricking word in a manual.
Install limits?
BS - that relegates this to a rental.
Next you say I have to install a Rootkit (SecuROM)?
Sorry, that goes way way way way way waaayyyyy over the line.
I've got one game that I'd still be playing occasionally, but I can't anymore.
The DRM incorporated on the CD (older version of SecuROM I believe) just won't let it to work.
Oh it'll install fine, but go do the CD check and it fails to start (CD not in Drive error) - and it happens will multiple Drives.
If this wasn't EA we're talking about, the Server Authentication might even be tolerable, but it is and their track record speaks volumes.
Here's a novel idea:
1.) Remove the Rootkit.
2.) Drop the install limit.
3.) Change the Authentication scheme to not a requirement but optional for bonus content.
4.) Include a Backup CD/DVD of the game so I don't need to make a backup.
Do these EA, and we could probably do business.
acheron
Diamond Member
So what makes Steam different? I haven't bought anything from Steam yet, but I downloaded it last night and was looking at it, and it still looks to me like you're completely reliant on Valve's servers to play your game. Like adding extra DRM onto games that don't really have any... i.e., in 2020, if I'm bored with Civilization VII and want to go retro and install Civ IV, I have the CDs and will probably be able to (assuming I have an optical drive then). But if I had bought Civ IV on Steam instead of the physical copy, then I'm SOL? (I picked 2020 as a date since a few months ago I reinstalled a game I bought in 1996 that I still had the CD for. I also have even older games that I pulled directly off an old hard drive. They all still work fine, despite many of the companies having gone out of business.)
Of course, I guess what makes Spore worse is that even when EA's servers are up and running, you still only get 3 installs, which is complete crap. I will not buy it unless the install limit is removed. I'm not happy with online activation either, obviously, but if it was just that I might suck it up... it's the install limit that puts it over the line for me.
Of course, I guess what makes Spore worse is that even when EA's servers are up and running, you still only get 3 installs, which is complete crap. I will not buy it unless the install limit is removed. I'm not happy with online activation either, obviously, but if it was just that I might suck it up... it's the install limit that puts it over the line for me.
I wouldn't mention that you're going to pirate something, it's against forum rules to admit you're going to break the law. Also, it absolutely destroys your argument to say you're going to pirate it. You call their policy regarding DRM draconian, but how is stealing the game any better - if not worse (it's illegal)? You can't argue the righteous cause of no-DRM and then steal the game, you're just reinforcing EA's decision to include DRM in the first place. The people who boycott have it right, it's just a shame they won't even dent EA's sales.
I'm with you on this one. I wish every game would come out on Steam.
You're wrong, actually. First of all, there's nothing regarding admission of law breaking; you're not allowed to post or link to any material which violates US law (a clause that prevents people from posting DeCSS code when that was a popular thing to do, for instance). That's not the same thing as admitting intent to pirate a game.
Also, straight out of the forum guidelines: Discussions addressing piracy are allowed
Here's a link if you're curious
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2070583&enterthread=y
Consider the fact that the developer only has certain statistics.
1) How many people bought the game
2) How many people pirated the game (easily obtainable)
They DO NOT know how many people refused to buy it. By pirating the game, you are sending a message. Yes, it's just as bad, but it's the only way to actually "vote." Otherwise, most companies will simply assume that the game was unpopular and that the poor sales had nothing to do with DRM.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. By pirating the game, you are sending a stronger message than not pirating the game. Companies like Stardock have realized this. Companies like EA have not. If they don't arrive to the same conclusion, then their PC sales will continue to drop and their DRM costs will continue to rise. If the cost of DRM is greater than the lost revenue due to piracy, then why incorporate DRM? The bottom line is that DRM does NOTHING to increase sales. Pirating a game with DRM actually discourages the use of DRM because it indicates that the DRM has failed and ended up costing more money than it was worth (effectively $0)
I'll put up with Steam's server validation method because I have faith that Valve would release patches to disable validation if they ever went bankrupt. They're just that kind of developer.
I agree that there was nothing in the forum rules about admitting piracy, but there have been MULTIPLE instances were posters (myself included) were reprimanded by mods for admitting that they planned to, or had at one time pirated something. You're not DISCUSSING piracy, you're ADMITTING to it.
Here's a quick example:
from here
Your economic logic is flawed.
1) You cannot use Stardock as a good comparison. Why? Because they don't even come remotely close to being in the same ballpark as EA. Period.
2) The argument that people would NOT pirate if DRM were NOT to be included is just absurd. Would SOME people not pirate? People like yourself that claim you pirate JUST because of DRM? Sure, maybe. But let's be honest here; if people knew they could just grab a torrent and pirate away without fear of any kind of DRM would they? Oh hell yeah. Is DRM an effective means of stopping piracy? No, we all know that most (and eventually all) DRM is cracked. But it still takes a LIMITED amount of knowledge to DL/install a crack. It's a lot easier for Joe Shmo to just DL a torrent and play than it is to DL a torrent, install the crack and play. (Don't underestimate the amount of morons out there)
3) This is a business for them, they aren't hurting because of DRM, they're hurting because of pirating (very arguable, I don't buy it myself either). So DRM is their vehicle to recoop a small amount of the revenues lost to piracy (is it effective? who knows). The bottom line is, you are not going to put them out of business by pirating. You just don't have that power. If big business were as susceptible to consumer whims as you seem to think, do you really think they'd be "big business" ?
I don't think pirating the game is a solution either, that'll just give EA even more reason to bitch about piracy and include even harder DRM or even worse, stop making PC games altogether, and before you cheer, remember EA owns a LOT of incredible developers and franchises (Bioware, Command & Conquer, Crysis, Burnout).
The solution is either not buying the game or buying the game and then putting a crack on it or something, EA probably KNOWS their DRM does nothing but like I, and other poster, said, they do it to keep their shareholders happy, if they didn't put DRM and their games got pirated it would look very bad for them, they are a big corporation, a BUSINESS.
If you pirate the game, you are just making it worse, the guys at Sony and EA are intelligent (yeah, I know you'd all like to think EA is run by chimps but it takes great business skills to be as big as EA is now), they have a big multi-billion company YOU don't for a reason, they know DRM does nothing and pirating the game is NOT going to solve the problem (they know it's going to be pirated).
If you pirate the game you just make it worse, EA will grab the number of Spore torrents downloaded off mininova or something and bitch the hell all about piracy and lost sales even if they had already made 10 times the budget of Spore in profit, why do they do it?
I agree activations are not nice but if you don't like it don't buy the game, just like you wouldn't buy a game because it has a bug or a glitch or something, personally, I don't find them to be enough of a hindrance. Games are not public domain, just because you don't like DRM doesn't mean you should go out and pirate it "to send a message to EA", the real message is not buying the game, pirating it only incentives EA to put stronger DRM.
Gaming as a whole is messed up, if publishers really wanted to have their games completely safe from pirates, they would all release their games exclusively on the PS3, they don't, so that obviously tells you that publishers themselves know piracy is not an issue, that's why more and more games are getting ported to the PC but it just turns out piracy is the perfect scapegoat to use when you want even more money and want a good excuse.
I already said it but I'll say it again, if you don't like the DRM, then don't get the game, don't be as stupid as to think sending an email or pirating the game will "send a message", a single consumer is very very very very insignificant to EA, even if they got hundreds of no DRM mails every day, that's still less than 1% of their possible userbase and seeing 500000 downloaded torrents at a torrent site only spurs the anger of their shareholders even more, thus, bigger DRM.
You gotta understand, EA is not made of gamers who want to provide the best games for gamers, EA is made of businessman and is a big corporation, as such, they need to make the decisions that will keep them afloat.
The solution is either not buying the game or buying the game and then putting a crack on it or something, EA probably KNOWS their DRM does nothing but like I, and other poster, said, they do it to keep their shareholders happy, if they didn't put DRM and their games got pirated it would look very bad for them, they are a big corporation, a BUSINESS.
If you pirate the game, you are just making it worse, the guys at Sony and EA are intelligent (yeah, I know you'd all like to think EA is run by chimps but it takes great business skills to be as big as EA is now), they have a big multi-billion company YOU don't for a reason, they know DRM does nothing and pirating the game is NOT going to solve the problem (they know it's going to be pirated).
If you pirate the game you just make it worse, EA will grab the number of Spore torrents downloaded off mininova or something and bitch the hell all about piracy and lost sales even if they had already made 10 times the budget of Spore in profit, why do they do it?
I agree activations are not nice but if you don't like it don't buy the game, just like you wouldn't buy a game because it has a bug or a glitch or something, personally, I don't find them to be enough of a hindrance. Games are not public domain, just because you don't like DRM doesn't mean you should go out and pirate it "to send a message to EA", the real message is not buying the game, pirating it only incentives EA to put stronger DRM.
Gaming as a whole is messed up, if publishers really wanted to have their games completely safe from pirates, they would all release their games exclusively on the PS3, they don't, so that obviously tells you that publishers themselves know piracy is not an issue, that's why more and more games are getting ported to the PC but it just turns out piracy is the perfect scapegoat to use when you want even more money and want a good excuse.
I already said it but I'll say it again, if you don't like the DRM, then don't get the game, don't be as stupid as to think sending an email or pirating the game will "send a message", a single consumer is very very very very insignificant to EA, even if they got hundreds of no DRM mails every day, that's still less than 1% of their possible userbase and seeing 500000 downloaded torrents at a torrent site only spurs the anger of their shareholders even more, thus, bigger DRM.
You gotta understand, EA is not made of gamers who want to provide the best games for gamers, EA is made of businessman and is a big corporation, as such, they need to make the decisions that will keep them afloat.
How is my economic logic flawed? None of those three points addressed my economic logic. When they use more DRM, more people pirate their software. DRM costs money. More DRM costs more money. More DRM causes more piracy, resulting in less revenue. Less revenue + more costs = less profit.
1) Fine, then let's ignore Stardock (even if you didn't provide a good reason for them not being in "the same ballpark"). Valve's DRM is unobtrusive. They're easily in the same ballpark. It is very rare to find a company that bothers with DRM that goes so far as to have a limited number of activations. Furthermore, EA's PC sales have been stagnant despite their efforts to ramp up DRM. If their people can't recognize a trend, then they deserve to fail. More DRM costs them sales, not the other way around.
2) In addition to Stardock, Valve's games go mostly unpirated despite pirated copies being readily available. Some people will always pirate. Most people won't, if given a reasonable alternative. Also, you're completely wrong when you say, "But let's be honest here; if people knew they could just grab a torrent and pirate away without fear of any kind of DRM would they? Oh hell yeah. Is DRM an effective means of stopping piracy? No, we all know that most (and eventually all) DRM is cracked." That is idiotic. The DRM is usually cracked by day three, if not day one. Thus, RIGHT NOW people can just grab a torrent and pirate away without fear of any kind of DRM. The people who are pirating games already have sufficient knowledge of how to DL/install a crack; all it requires is that you copy-paste a file. You don't even have to look for the crack, it will come with the pirated copy. A trained chimp can do it. If Joe Shmo doesn't know how to install a crack, then Joe Shmo also doesn't know how to start a torrent (or even what a torrent is). Thus, DRM is not doing anything.
3) Basic economics, pay attention because you failed to understand it the first time. EA pays out the ass for DRM, and what does DRM give them in return? DRM provides no increased revenue. If anything, DRM actually costs them additional revenue due to people who pirate their game out of principle.
DRM = higher costs (DRM costs money to implement)
DRM = lower revenue (DRM causes more people to pirate the games out of principle. If we ignore that group, the same number of people who would have pirated the game will pirate it anyway)
Higher costs + lower revenue (or even the same revenue) = less profit
Any moron can see this, which makes the guys in charge of EA lower than morons! No good business would adopt such a foolish strategy. The only reasonable DRM is a basic CD in drive check, because it effectively costs nothing to implement and prevents Joe Shmo from pirating easily. Even a server validation check like what Valve uses is reasonable, since those servers are also used for multiplayer, so it costs effectively nothing to implement this. SecuROM, however, costs considerably more than you might think.
1) Fine, then let's ignore Stardock (even if you didn't provide a good reason for them not being in "the same ballpark"). Valve's DRM is unobtrusive. They're easily in the same ballpark. It is very rare to find a company that bothers with DRM that goes so far as to have a limited number of activations. Furthermore, EA's PC sales have been stagnant despite their efforts to ramp up DRM. If their people can't recognize a trend, then they deserve to fail. More DRM costs them sales, not the other way around.
2) In addition to Stardock, Valve's games go mostly unpirated despite pirated copies being readily available. Some people will always pirate. Most people won't, if given a reasonable alternative. Also, you're completely wrong when you say, "But let's be honest here; if people knew they could just grab a torrent and pirate away without fear of any kind of DRM would they? Oh hell yeah. Is DRM an effective means of stopping piracy? No, we all know that most (and eventually all) DRM is cracked." That is idiotic. The DRM is usually cracked by day three, if not day one. Thus, RIGHT NOW people can just grab a torrent and pirate away without fear of any kind of DRM. The people who are pirating games already have sufficient knowledge of how to DL/install a crack; all it requires is that you copy-paste a file. You don't even have to look for the crack, it will come with the pirated copy. A trained chimp can do it. If Joe Shmo doesn't know how to install a crack, then Joe Shmo also doesn't know how to start a torrent (or even what a torrent is). Thus, DRM is not doing anything.
3) Basic economics, pay attention because you failed to understand it the first time. EA pays out the ass for DRM, and what does DRM give them in return? DRM provides no increased revenue. If anything, DRM actually costs them additional revenue due to people who pirate their game out of principle.
DRM = higher costs (DRM costs money to implement)
DRM = lower revenue (DRM causes more people to pirate the games out of principle. If we ignore that group, the same number of people who would have pirated the game will pirate it anyway)
Higher costs + lower revenue (or even the same revenue) = less profit
Any moron can see this, which makes the guys in charge of EA lower than morons! No good business would adopt such a foolish strategy. The only reasonable DRM is a basic CD in drive check, because it effectively costs nothing to implement and prevents Joe Shmo from pirating easily. Even a server validation check like what Valve uses is reasonable, since those servers are also used for multiplayer, so it costs effectively nothing to implement this. SecuROM, however, costs considerably more than you might think.
Piuc2020, even good businessmen make mistakes. DRM is one of those mistakes. There is no getting around that.
Once again, how does EA know that you didn't buy the game? A lost sale to EA to them means either a bad game or a poor marketing campaign. A pirated game means a popular game that shipped with ineffective DRM. Since DRM is never effective, the ultimate solution will be to eventually scrap DRM all together. It may take them a lot of tries to get this, but they will understand it eventually. The more DRM they attach to games, the more heavily their games are pirated and the more money it costs them to implement additional DRM. It's the only way that they will ever scale back. A good businessman will be able to look at the statistics and realize this. Additional DRM costs money and gives back nothing. A good businessman would scrap the idea and return to more modest DRM that costs nothing to implement, like CD checks.
Once again, how does EA know that you didn't buy the game? A lost sale to EA to them means either a bad game or a poor marketing campaign. A pirated game means a popular game that shipped with ineffective DRM. Since DRM is never effective, the ultimate solution will be to eventually scrap DRM all together. It may take them a lot of tries to get this, but they will understand it eventually. The more DRM they attach to games, the more heavily their games are pirated and the more money it costs them to implement additional DRM. It's the only way that they will ever scale back. A good businessman will be able to look at the statistics and realize this. Additional DRM costs money and gives back nothing. A good businessman would scrap the idea and return to more modest DRM that costs nothing to implement, like CD checks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
