Spore will have DRM - deemed "Necessary"

[VashHT]

I agree with what EeeZee is saying, DRM is not going to deter anyone from pirating this game because they are not personally cracking it. These publishers act like each pirate is going to have to crack their own copy when in reality they simply don't have to deal with the DRM whatsoever. DRM only annoys people who buy it, pirates don't even have to bother with it at all. They're just pissing away money implementing it.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: VashHT
I agree with what EeeZee is saying, DRM is not going to deter anyone from pirating this game because they are not personally cracking it. These publishers act like each pirate is going to have to crack their own copy when in reality they simply don't have to deal with the DRM whatsoever. DRM only annoys people who buy it, pirates don't even have to bother with it at all. They're just pissing away money implementing it.

Exactly EeeZees right on the mark. I used to be rather passive to DRM, i wouldnt openly attack those who critisize it but i never had problems with it until recently i couldnt get simcity 4 to run because of it.

DRM is a pile of bullshit and anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasent been burned by it yet, dont worry it will probably happen sooner or later then you can join the DRM is BS crew.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
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.

You said it's basic economics but obviously you don't know your economics very well. EA doesn't put DRM knowing that it will stop their game from being pirated, EA does it because it keeps their shareholders secure and gives EA a legitimate reason to bitch about piracy or use piracy as an excuse for an investor "we did what we could, we, the innocent martyrs, did our best (DRM) but the evil blood-sucking pirates robbed us of the money *sob* *sob*" and that's how they keep making PC games, if piracy represented a loss to them, as any good businessman would do, they would simply migrate exclusively to the PS3 but the PC makes them earn money, they are not the martyrs enduring the "financially challenging" PC market, PC gaming is very profitable for them.

EA has not made their way to the top by making mistakes, I don't like their business practices because it affects me as a gamer but you have to understand they are doing what they have to, there's a reason why they are so a big and why they publish and release so many games. I agree EA might sell better if they canned DRM but it's not an option for them, the "economics" you are trying to secure your argument in are not just about units sold, it's about much more. EA has decided DRM is the best business decision right now, nothing an insignificant gamer says will make them change their mind about it, they are earning lots of money, growing even more, their stock is going up, they are buying more and more franchises and developers, obviously DRM is doing something for them.

Even if it's a bad decision, they won't care if their games are pirated to hell and back just as long as they keep making money and they keep growing, nothing you or any gamer says will make them change their mind. It's like those stupid protests or those walks or marathon for a cause, they are POINTLESS, they do nothing, the best way to fix a problem is through the careful use of intelligence and emotion, not through mindless verbal or physical outrages.

If you don't like the DRM, just don't buy the game, millions of people will, just don't try or pretend to understand everything like an economical mastermind and judge every action EA does when you (apparently) don't know squat about economics and even worse, you (or anyone else in this forum) don't know squat about EA or their circumstances.

 

[videogames101]

Steam is a great DRM tool because

1. It's easy and unobtrusive.
2. Valve makes some of the best games being released right now, so even though they're are cracked copies available, I'd still pay valve because I think they're uberamazing.
3. No install limit. (Install as many times as you want on as many computers as you want)
4. No download limit. (same as install really)
5. Games linked to accounts, which means you don't have anything like EA does which ties games to computers themselves. (install limits, etc)



EA doesn't seem to get that piracy isn't the reason of their crappy sales, it's crappy games.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: VashHT
I agree with what EeeZee is saying, DRM is not going to deter anyone from pirating this game because they are not personally cracking it. These publishers act like each pirate is going to have to crack their own copy when in reality they simply don't have to deal with the DRM whatsoever. DRM only annoys people who buy it, pirates don't even have to bother with it at all. They're just pissing away money implementing it.

Use your brain, if it's so painfully obvious for everyone here that DRM doesn't stop piracy, you'd really think EA wouldn't know it? None of us are rocket scientists here, all the stuff WE know is stuff EA knows already.

So why do they keep putting DRM? I honestly don't know but there must be a good reason, maybe it doesn't concern us gamers who are annoyed by DRM but EA has probably deemed it the best financial decision for them right now. The guys at EA are not stupid.

Yes DRM sucks and I'd like it to go away but telling EA something they already know is not going to change their minds. In the meantime, I buy their games because I don't mind DRM THAT much and their games are great for the most part, so it'd be stupid for me not to buy the games and it'd be even more stupid to not buy them or pirate them as a form of "protest".

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
Even if it's a bad decision, they won't care if their games are pirated to hell and back just as long as they keep making money and they keep growing, nothing you or any gamer says will make them change their mind. It's like those stupid protests or those walks or marathon for a cause, they are POINTLESS, they do nothing, the best way to fix a problem

Its that kind of attitude that allows big buisness to walk over people and spit in their faces. No 1 gamer does make a difference, 1 person makes a difference. EA already has a bad reputation and its only going to get worse until people just wont touch an EA game. Bringing peoples attention to bullshit like this is the key, it dosent advertise on the box "COMES WITH DRM" with any clause explaining what DRM is or how it even works. People need to realise that with this game and other games they will get burned and they should just go buy a console game or pirate the game instead. The music industry is starting to realise that DRM is just hurting legit customers because of its loss of sales and its removing DRM from music in some cases, its high time EA and any other publishers that use DRM took note of this and removed DRM.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
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.

If you really need to me to illustrate how Stardock is not even remotely in the ballpark with EA, then I don't even know what to say. Just take a look at sales volume and go from there. Valve and EA are a much better comparison in terms of sales, but they're still very different when it comes to pirating games. I'm just curious as to how you know how many of Valve's games get pirated vs EA's? Do you somehow have pirate statistics that state this? If you're talking about something like TF2, or another multiplayer game then yes, obviously it doesn't get pirated as often as say, Crysis. But I just don't see how you can claim that HL2/Portal weren't pirated. I'm not going to type it out again as Piuc2020 did it pretty well. EA is at (near) the top of gaming, they're obviously not spiraling downward due to DRM so I just don't even see how you can believe your own logic. Unless you believe that you, and a few thousand (million) other people pirating a game are going to bring them down. It won't.

 

[Pia]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
I don't get all the complaining when a crack is bound to be released within a few weeks. If you don't like the DRM then get a crack instead of whining about the death of PC gaming. As long as you bought the game you have every right to modify it.

You don't find running closed source code from anonymous, untrackable authors any sort of risk?

 

[Eeezee]

*sigh* Why do so many people here fail at reading comprehension? I never said that EA was "spiraling downward due to DRM." I stated that they're making less money because of it.

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. If I drew it in crayon, would that help?
1) DRM costs money to implement (negative impact on profit)
2) DRM does not help sales at all (neutral impact on profit)
3) If anything, DRM only promotes primacy (negative impact on profit)
WHAT IS THE NET RESULT? LESS PROFIT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS? TO GENERATE PROFIT
2+2 = 4, 1 = 0.9999999....

Yes, DRM does appease the shareholders, but implementing ADDITIONAL DRM does NOT. Minimal DRM is sufficient to convince a board that you are combating piracy. No, only ignorance can result in EA pushing for tighter DRM measures. "Appeasing the shareholders" does nothing to generate profit. GENERATING PROFIT appeases the shareholders. Claiming otherwise is sheer IDIOCY

Piuc2020, are you an EA employee? How do you claim to know so much about their inner workings? How do you know that they're making a financially sound decision by pushing additional levels of DRM beyond the norm? What gives you so much grand insight into these matters? You're basing your opinion on faith in EA, and that is no way to win an argument. If you're so convinced that additional levels of DRM are saving EA some money, then come up with some ideas as to how. You've agreed that DRM is not bringing in additional income. You've agreed that DRM costs money to implement. Just because EA makes tons of money doesn't mean that all of their decisions are financially correct; can we agree on that?

Explain to me how introducing an additional level of DRM is going to serve EA's best interests (maximum profit). And then explain how snake oil is a panacea. Go ahead, that will be fun.

 

[irishScott]

1. My not buying a game on "principle" isn't going to stop EA from putting crappy DRM on their games.

2. I actually like C&C3 + Kane's Wrath, and Spore looks awesome.

Digression: For those who say it'll be a snooze fest, the point is to raise an organism from the cellular level to a space-faring civilization, completely customized along the way. It's a computerized toy. You can screw around in a completely unique universe, colonize a galaxy, etc.

Maybe it's just more for people who like experimenting as opposed to following a pre-set plot.

3. I've never had any problems with any DRM. Therefore I have nothing buy the philosophy to bitch about (for now). There will be cracks on the intarwebs at least a week before the thing even launches if your panties are that tight about it.

 

[Pia]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
So why do they keep putting DRM? I honestly don't know but there must be a good reason, maybe it doesn't concern us gamers who are annoyed by DRM but EA has probably deemed it the best financial decision for them right now. The guys at EA are not stupid.

I can only think of two reasons they use it.

One is to delay the pirates during the initial sales spike. Maybe for a week or two. For a mass-market game, the monetary impact from that can be big.

The other reason is to milk more money out of their legit customers. Network activation kills resale in its tracks. I can think of other things as well, more underhanded.

I'm positive this is what they are actually trying to do. If it was just about stopping the pirates, they could remove the DRM from the product in the next patch after the initial DRM is cracked and the pirate version is out. It's self evident that the DRM on the legit product does nothing against pirates at that point.

Yes DRM sucks and I'd like it to go away but telling EA something they already know is not going to change their minds. In the meantime, I buy their games because I don't mind DRM THAT much and their games are great for the most part, so it'd be stupid for me not to buy the games and it'd be even more stupid to not buy them or pirate them as a form of "protest".

Dunno what's stupid about it. They make a shitty product, you leave it on the shelf, they take note. That is the only real input we have.

Maybe you have time to play everything that's out. I don't. I'll have to not play most games anyway, so I'll just use the presence of extra-painful DRM as one criteria for what to skip.

OT: you are the only person I have seen saying that EA games are good for the most part.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: Pia

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
So why do they keep putting DRM? I honestly don't know but there must be a good reason, maybe it doesn't concern us gamers who are annoyed by DRM but EA has probably deemed it the best financial decision for them right now. The guys at EA are not stupid.

I can only think of two reasons they use it.

One is to delay the pirates during the initial sales spike. Maybe for a week or two. For a mass-market game, the monetary impact from that can be big.

The other reason is to milk more money out of their legit customers. Network activation kills resale in its tracks. I can think of other things as well, more underhanded.

I'm positive this is what they are actually trying to do. If it was just about stopping the pirates, they could remove the DRM from the product in the next patch after the initial DRM is cracked and the pirate version is out. It's self evident that the DRM on the legit product does nothing against pirates at that point.

Yes DRM sucks and I'd like it to go away but telling EA something they already know is not going to change their minds. In the meantime, I buy their games because I don't mind DRM THAT much and their games are great for the most part, so it'd be stupid for me not to buy the games and it'd be even more stupid to not buy them or pirate them as a form of "protest".

Dunno what's stupid about it. They make a shitty product, you leave it on the shelf, they take note. That is the only real input we have.

Maybe you have time to play everything that's out. I don't. I'll have to not play most games anyway, so I'll just use the presence of extra-painful DRM as one criteria for what to skip.

OT: you are the only person I have seen saying that EA games are good for the most part.

If you don't like, don't buy it, I agree with you, but not buying a game you love or that you are very interested in just as a form of protest because it has DRM is just stupid. At the end of the day I just want to relax playing a nice good game, I don't care if it has DRM or if it was made by the devil, if it's fun and it entertains me then I'll buy it, period.

Some EA published games are very good, Mass Effect PC, Burnout, Crysis, Command & Conquer, etc, EA may have dubious business practices but their developers still make great games.

You guys can go all sour, angry and bored in your heroic "protests", I'll be relaxing and having fun playing some nice games.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
*sigh* Why do so many people here fail at reading comprehension? I never said that EA was "spiraling downward due to DRM." I stated that they're making less money because of it.

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. If I drew it in crayon, would that help?
1) DRM costs money to implement (negative impact on profit)
2) DRM does not help sales at all (neutral impact on profit)
3) If anything, DRM only promotes primacy (negative impact on profit)
WHAT IS THE NET RESULT? LESS PROFIT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS? TO GENERATE PROFIT
2+2 = 4, 1 = 0.9999999....

Yes, DRM does appease the shareholders, but implementing ADDITIONAL DRM does NOT. Minimal DRM is sufficient to convince a board that you are combating piracy. No, only ignorance can result in EA pushing for tighter DRM measures. "Appeasing the shareholders" does nothing to generate profit. GENERATING PROFIT appeases the shareholders. Claiming otherwise is sheer IDIOCY

Piuc2020, are you an EA employee? How do you claim to know so much about their inner workings? How do you know that they're making a financially sound decision by pushing additional levels of DRM beyond the norm? What gives you so much grand insight into these matters? You're basing your opinion on faith in EA, and that is no way to win an argument. If you're so convinced that additional levels of DRM are saving EA some money, then come up with some ideas as to how. You've agreed that DRM is not bringing in additional income. You've agreed that DRM costs money to implement. Just because EA makes tons of money doesn't mean that all of their decisions are financially correct; can we agree on that?

Explain to me how introducing an additional level of DRM is going to serve EA's best interests (maximum profit). And then explain how snake oil is a panacea. Go ahead, that will be fun.

You just can't claim that DRM is causing loss of revenue. There is no way to prove that those people pirating the game claiming it's due to DRM would absolutely buy it otherwise. Sure, it's nice to say, but I'd bet there are a good number of pirates who use DRM just an excuse. You simply can't prove that DRM = loss of a sale because you can't prove that a pirate would otherwise buy the game. Also, it's not like people sitting on a board of directors/etc. don't have experts doing their own research. These guys are going to want the "best" DRM available. Bigwigs wanting DRM was also a contributing factor to HD-DVDs demise, you can't just expect them to stop using it.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Eeezee
*sigh* Why do so many people here fail at reading comprehension? I never said that EA was "spiraling downward due to DRM." I stated that they're making less money because of it.

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. If I drew it in crayon, would that help?
1) DRM costs money to implement (negative impact on profit)
2) DRM does not help sales at all (neutral impact on profit)
3) If anything, DRM only promotes primacy (negative impact on profit)
WHAT IS THE NET RESULT? LESS PROFIT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS? TO GENERATE PROFIT
2+2 = 4, 1 = 0.9999999....

Yes, DRM does appease the shareholders, but implementing ADDITIONAL DRM does NOT. Minimal DRM is sufficient to convince a board that you are combating piracy. No, only ignorance can result in EA pushing for tighter DRM measures. "Appeasing the shareholders" does nothing to generate profit. GENERATING PROFIT appeases the shareholders. Claiming otherwise is sheer IDIOCY

Piuc2020, are you an EA employee? How do you claim to know so much about their inner workings? How do you know that they're making a financially sound decision by pushing additional levels of DRM beyond the norm? What gives you so much grand insight into these matters? You're basing your opinion on faith in EA, and that is no way to win an argument. If you're so convinced that additional levels of DRM are saving EA some money, then come up with some ideas as to how. You've agreed that DRM is not bringing in additional income. You've agreed that DRM costs money to implement. Just because EA makes tons of money doesn't mean that all of their decisions are financially correct; can we agree on that?

Explain to me how introducing an additional level of DRM is going to serve EA's best interests (maximum profit). And then explain how snake oil is a panacea. Go ahead, that will be fun.

You just can't claim that DRM is causing loss of revenue. There is no way to prove that those people pirating the game claiming it's due to DRM would absolutely buy it otherwise. Sure, it's nice to say, but I'd bet there are a good number of pirates who use DRM just an excuse. You simply can't prove that DRM = loss of a sale because you can't prove that a pirate would otherwise buy the game. Also, it's not like people sitting on a board of directors/etc. don't have experts doing their own research. These guys are going to want the "best" DRM available. Bigwigs wanting DRM was also a contributing factor to HD-DVDs demise, you can't just expect them to stop using it.

That "unbreakable" HD-DVD DRM?

(epic lulz)

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Eeezee
*sigh* Why do so many people here fail at reading comprehension? I never said that EA was "spiraling downward due to DRM." I stated that they're making less money because of it.

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. If I drew it in crayon, would that help?
1) DRM costs money to implement (negative impact on profit)
2) DRM does not help sales at all (neutral impact on profit)
3) If anything, DRM only promotes primacy (negative impact on profit)
WHAT IS THE NET RESULT? LESS PROFIT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS? TO GENERATE PROFIT
2+2 = 4, 1 = 0.9999999....

Yes, DRM does appease the shareholders, but implementing ADDITIONAL DRM does NOT. Minimal DRM is sufficient to convince a board that you are combating piracy. No, only ignorance can result in EA pushing for tighter DRM measures. "Appeasing the shareholders" does nothing to generate profit. GENERATING PROFIT appeases the shareholders. Claiming otherwise is sheer IDIOCY

Piuc2020, are you an EA employee? How do you claim to know so much about their inner workings? How do you know that they're making a financially sound decision by pushing additional levels of DRM beyond the norm? What gives you so much grand insight into these matters? You're basing your opinion on faith in EA, and that is no way to win an argument. If you're so convinced that additional levels of DRM are saving EA some money, then come up with some ideas as to how. You've agreed that DRM is not bringing in additional income. You've agreed that DRM costs money to implement. Just because EA makes tons of money doesn't mean that all of their decisions are financially correct; can we agree on that?

Explain to me how introducing an additional level of DRM is going to serve EA's best interests (maximum profit). And then explain how snake oil is a panacea. Go ahead, that will be fun.

You just can't claim that DRM is causing loss of revenue. There is no way to prove that those people pirating the game claiming it's due to DRM would absolutely buy it otherwise. Sure, it's nice to say, but I'd bet there are a good number of pirates who use DRM just an excuse. You simply can't prove that DRM = loss of a sale because you can't prove that a pirate would otherwise buy the game. Also, it's not like people sitting on a board of directors/etc. don't have experts doing their own research. These guys are going to want the "best" DRM available. Bigwigs wanting DRM was also a contributing factor to HD-DVDs demise, you can't just expect them to stop using it.

That "unbreakable" HD-DVD DRM?

(epic lulz)

Hmm?

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Eeezee
*sigh* Why do so many people here fail at reading comprehension? I never said that EA was "spiraling downward due to DRM." I stated that they're making less money because of it.

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. If I drew it in crayon, would that help?
1) DRM costs money to implement (negative impact on profit)
2) DRM does not help sales at all (neutral impact on profit)
3) If anything, DRM only promotes primacy (negative impact on profit)
WHAT IS THE NET RESULT? LESS PROFIT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS? TO GENERATE PROFIT
2+2 = 4, 1 = 0.9999999....

Yes, DRM does appease the shareholders, but implementing ADDITIONAL DRM does NOT. Minimal DRM is sufficient to convince a board that you are combating piracy. No, only ignorance can result in EA pushing for tighter DRM measures. "Appeasing the shareholders" does nothing to generate profit. GENERATING PROFIT appeases the shareholders. Claiming otherwise is sheer IDIOCY

Piuc2020, are you an EA employee? How do you claim to know so much about their inner workings? How do you know that they're making a financially sound decision by pushing additional levels of DRM beyond the norm? What gives you so much grand insight into these matters? You're basing your opinion on faith in EA, and that is no way to win an argument. If you're so convinced that additional levels of DRM are saving EA some money, then come up with some ideas as to how. You've agreed that DRM is not bringing in additional income. You've agreed that DRM costs money to implement. Just because EA makes tons of money doesn't mean that all of their decisions are financially correct; can we agree on that?

Explain to me how introducing an additional level of DRM is going to serve EA's best interests (maximum profit). And then explain how snake oil is a panacea. Go ahead, that will be fun.

You just can't claim that DRM is causing loss of revenue. There is no way to prove that those people pirating the game claiming it's due to DRM would absolutely buy it otherwise. Sure, it's nice to say, but I'd bet there are a good number of pirates who use DRM just an excuse. You simply can't prove that DRM = loss of a sale because you can't prove that a pirate would otherwise buy the game. Also, it's not like people sitting on a board of directors/etc. don't have experts doing their own research. These guys are going to want the "best" DRM available. Bigwigs wanting DRM was also a contributing factor to HD-DVDs demise, you can't just expect them to stop using it.

That "unbreakable" HD-DVD DRM?

(epic lulz)

Hmm?

That stupid key that people were posting all over the internet a few months back, some people here have it in their sig. You need it to pirate HD-DVD's or something, not that it matters anymore since blu ray won.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

You just can't claim that DRM is causing loss of revenue. There is no way to prove that those people pirating the game claiming it's due to DRM would absolutely buy it otherwise. Sure, it's nice to say, but I'd bet there are a good number of pirates who use DRM just an excuse. You simply can't prove that DRM = loss of a sale because you can't prove that a pirate would otherwise buy the game. Also, it's not like people sitting on a board of directors/etc. don't have experts doing their own research. These guys are going to want the "best" DRM available. Bigwigs wanting DRM was also a contributing factor to HD-DVDs demise, you can't just expect them to stop using it.

Even if the DRM mechanism was made in house, your are paying those people a salary which become a cost for the game, hence it takes away profit.

 

[Jack Flash]

Install limit? I'll pass.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Eeezee
*sigh* Why do so many people here fail at reading comprehension? I never said that EA was "spiraling downward due to DRM." I stated that they're making less money because of it.

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this. If I drew it in crayon, would that help?
1) DRM costs money to implement (negative impact on profit)
2) DRM does not help sales at all (neutral impact on profit)
3) If anything, DRM only promotes primacy (negative impact on profit)
WHAT IS THE NET RESULT? LESS PROFIT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS? TO GENERATE PROFIT
2+2 = 4, 1 = 0.9999999....

Yes, DRM does appease the shareholders, but implementing ADDITIONAL DRM does NOT. Minimal DRM is sufficient to convince a board that you are combating piracy. No, only ignorance can result in EA pushing for tighter DRM measures. "Appeasing the shareholders" does nothing to generate profit. GENERATING PROFIT appeases the shareholders. Claiming otherwise is sheer IDIOCY

Piuc2020, are you an EA employee? How do you claim to know so much about their inner workings? How do you know that they're making a financially sound decision by pushing additional levels of DRM beyond the norm? What gives you so much grand insight into these matters? You're basing your opinion on faith in EA, and that is no way to win an argument. If you're so convinced that additional levels of DRM are saving EA some money, then come up with some ideas as to how. You've agreed that DRM is not bringing in additional income. You've agreed that DRM costs money to implement. Just because EA makes tons of money doesn't mean that all of their decisions are financially correct; can we agree on that?

Explain to me how introducing an additional level of DRM is going to serve EA's best interests (maximum profit). And then explain how snake oil is a panacea. Go ahead, that will be fun.

You just can't claim that DRM is causing loss of revenue. There is no way to prove that those people pirating the game claiming it's due to DRM would absolutely buy it otherwise. Sure, it's nice to say, but I'd bet there are a good number of pirates who use DRM just an excuse. You simply can't prove that DRM = loss of a sale because you can't prove that a pirate would otherwise buy the game. Also, it's not like people sitting on a board of directors/etc. don't have experts doing their own research. These guys are going to want the "best" DRM available. Bigwigs wanting DRM was also a contributing factor to HD-DVDs demise, you can't just expect them to stop using it.

Good job, you focused on one point while ignoring the other two. Please address them
1) DRM costs money to implement
2) DRM does not help sales at all
Even if it doesn't cause a loss of revenue, the net result is LESS PROFIT one way or another.

Now, back to revenue; I'm certain that DRM does cost a loss of revenue because countless people don't buy games with excessive DRM. I'm one of them! Others on this board have been chiming in, stating that they won't purchase this game with its maximum install limits. Remember when Mass Effect was going to have similar DRM? Enough people threatened to not buy Mass Effect because of the DRM that EA was considering, and EA changed their decision. You'd have to be insane to claim that DRM has never cost a developer any revenue. I recall that a fair number of people didn't play Bioshock on PC because it had excessive DRM; a number of these people ended up pirating the game because of its DRM. Even if nobody pirated it, some people ended up never buying the game, and that is a loss of revenue.

Anyone at EA who argues for more layers of DRM needs to pull their head out of their ass and look at the facts. DRM does not prevent most piracy. The only kind of piracy DRM ever prevented was Joe Shmo from copying the disc and giving it to his friends; it has never prevented Joe Shmo from downloading a torrent of the game. Beyond basic copy protection, any DRM is just unnecessary additional cost with nothing to show for it.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok
You just can't claim that DRM is causing loss of revenue. There is no way to prove that those people pirating the game claiming it's due to DRM would absolutely buy it otherwise. Sure, it's nice to say, but I'd bet there are a good number of pirates who use DRM just an excuse. You simply can't prove that DRM = loss of a sale because you can't prove that a pirate would otherwise buy the game. Also, it's not like people sitting on a board of directors/etc. don't have experts doing their own research. These guys are going to want the "best" DRM available. Bigwigs wanting DRM was also a contributing factor to HD-DVDs demise, you can't just expect them to stop using it.

This prooves his point


1. Its not possible to know if people who pirate games would buy the games or not anyhow, ?
2. DRM does stop some people from buying the games, fact
3. DRM costs alot of money to impliment, fact

= DRM only costs the producers money

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020


If you don't like, don't buy it, I agree with you, but not buying a game you love or that you are very interested in just as a form of protest because it has DRM is just stupid. At the end of the day I just want to relax playing a nice good game, I don't care if it has DRM or if it was made by the devil, if it's fun and it entertains me then I'll buy it, period.

Some EA published games are very good, Mass Effect PC, Burnout, Crysis, Command & Conquer, etc, EA may have dubious business practices but their developers still make great games.

You guys can go all sour, angry and bored in your heroic "protests", I'll be relaxing and having fun playing some nice games.

And its because of this attitude that EA's games will continue to get shorter and shorter, more bug ridden, and feature progressively more restrictive DRM.

 

[novasatori]

drm sucks
I was actually considering preordering 2 copies of this (wife loves the sims) but I'm passing with activation limits.

 

[Modular]

This thread delivers!

The truth of the matter is simply this: if there was no DRM, there would be just as many people pirating (if not more). This whole "holier than thou" Robin Hood approach to pirating over DRM is the real bullshit. Buy the game or don't. Pirating is not the answer; you aren't making any statement other than proving it's a problem to the devs of a game if you pirate.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Modular
This thread delivers!

The truth of the matter is simply this: if there was no DRM, there would be just as many people pirating (if not more). This whole "holier than thou" Robin Hood approach to pirating over DRM is the real bullshit. Buy the game or don't. Pirating is not the answer; you aren't making any statement other than proving it's a problem to the devs of a game if you pirate.

Agreed. There are plenty of games out there, and I have limited time. I'm not going to spend money to waste time fucking around with this shit. I'll just buy some other game or play the massive back catalog of old ones that I haven't gotten too.

 

[Beev]

I was fully planning on buying it. Hesitantly at first because I don't like to support EA (but meh, I bought Crysis) and now I'm just not going to deal with the DRM.

There. A 100% truthful example of DRM causing the game to lose a paying customer.