Originally posted by: Red Irish
I do not feel that DRM achieves its stated purpose. I also feel that piracy is used as a pretext to enable the companies to gain greater control over aspects that have nothing to do with piracy.
That's nice, its obvious you have a lot of unfounded or poorly formulate opinions. As for enabling them to gain greater control, again, let me know when DRM does more than protect the copyright holder's content.
Once again, you dismiss numerous complaints on numerous sites and fail to address the question of limiting consumer rights.
I haven't dismissed any complaints or arguments without considering them thoroughly, weighing the evidence, and coming to an informed conclusion. And that conclusion consistently leads me to believe anti-DRM arguments have little substance compared to arguments that see DRM as a necessity that's more effective than no DRM.
Just looked below and saw nothing of relevance to the question, so I'll ask it again.
Really? What games and what problems? You've already said:
"I am currently experiencing no problems with Securom as I have not purchased any games that include Securom in recent months".
Given most every relevant game in the last few years have included SecuROM in some form or another, I'm genuinely curious what problems you've had with SecuROM.
Cheese-sow [sorry, couldn't resist], my intention is not to simply stir up controversy. I believe that stringent DRM is adversely affecting the gaming experience on the PC and I feel that coverage should be provided on forums, to allow users to express their opinions in this regard. The fact that the original poster referred to DRM as crippleware in the title of the thread shows that I am not alone. However, anyone who is bored or annoyed by the topic of DRM is given fair warning, given that the title of the thread clearly states the topic of dicussion, and can simply stay away. This is not trolling.
Of course you couldn't resist, its expected behavior from a troll. Its obvious you're not alone, there's plenty of misinformation about DRM and SecuROM and proponents supporting that view. What there isn't much evidence of however, is that your position and opinions are based on any substantive evidence or facts.
Chizow, on the "Securom on Games" thread I stated the following:
You allege that I have failed to provide proof. I have experienced first-hand problems with Securom; however, no proof provided on Internet forums can escape your criticism of ?unverifiable personal testimonies?. Do you expect us all to invite you over for a drink so that you can check things out in person? The fact that you choose to ignore the number of complaints against Securom present on the Internet, or simply dismiss these testimonies as uncorroborated evidence is, quite frankly, insulting. Why do you require more information? Do you want such information in order to assign blame to other components within a given user?s system, or assure us that this particular version of Securom has now been fixed? Do you really think that so many users on so many different sites have simply invented their problems or mistakenly identified Securom as the root of their woes? Other users within this thread have already outlined the problems they have experienced with Securom. You are not listening.
My accusations have not proved unfounded, this is exactly what you are doing. When people complain about Securom you act as a courtroom lawyer with an agenda to prove that their accusations are unfounded, based on misunderstanding or user error and not worthy of the court's consideration. You place the burden of proof on the individual with a complaint and consistently defend the companies, all in the name of protecting gaming on the pc. We are gamers chizow, but you appear to be a company representative.
I did not give further details of my own experiences with Securom for the reasons outlined above. Moreover, I do not want to discuss a personal case, but rather the manner in which Securom is affecting the community as a whole. For what it's worth, Securom did not eat my optical drive; however, subsequent to installing Bioshock, the drive made strange whizzing noises and no longer recognised some of my original music CD's and certain videos that I rented. Of course, this could also be attributed to gremlins, the sugarplum fairy or the ghost of christmas past.
Yes, you've made it clear your problems fall within the realm of fantasy. A simple detail of your troubleshooting efforts, perhaps drive model, problems, symptoms etc would've been sufficient, but I understand its harder for someone like you to fabricate those kind of details when you don't have relevant technical knowledge or first-hand experience to draw upon. So did you fix the problem? Those of us not deeply rooted in fantasy would've simply tried updating or reflashing the drive's firmware, did you try that? Let me guess, SecuROM doggie ate that firmware info too right?
I didn't feel the need. I knew exactly what was causing the problem.
LMAO. So you really expect us to believe someone who has over 100 anti-DRM posts in less than a month didn't see the need to document or troubleshoot their only potential issue with SecuROM? That'd be the equivalent of a breakaway 360 slam dunk or a grand slam for someone with as clear an agenda as you. Let me guess, you only just discovered the intarweb a little bit over a month ago too right?
We are not asking them to remove all DRM. Oblivion, for example, contained a CD-check, but did not contain Securom. The numbers get even uglier when they use the most draconian form of Securom witnessed to date (Spore), thereby removing any merit from your argument.
But you've already said numerous times you're still opposed to SecuROM games with a simple CD-check and serial key and that you are in fact opposed to all forms of DRM other than a simple CD-check. Do I need to quote you again? Stop contradicting yourself. I've never once said activation based forms of DRM are the only form of effective DRM, I've said any DRM is more effective than no DRM. The example you keep referring to, Spore, has shown you to be wrong time and time again as it shows DRM does prevent rampant piracy as Spore sold more copies than were stolen, despite being the most pirated game of 2008 and that games with no DRM are punished the worst by piracy.
I refer you to mindcycle's extremely revealing post above, wherein he reproduces a conversation outlining the manner in which EA makes a decision on the type of security they will use.
And how is that different than anything I said in my previous reply here? Who said they're ignoring legitimate complaints? I said they're not, and if their data and feedback shows no substantial increase in effectiveness in preventing piracy with online activation vs. number of problems or complaints, it would obviously be good business to scale back to previous forms of effective DRM. But that is *VERY* different than removing DRM altogether, which they clearly have not done.
Absolute certainty? You have to love this guy/girl.
Absolutely certain. Its really simple, if you actually purchased games, you'd have extensive experience with DRM and SecuROM. Your list confirms it for all to see, most games over the last few years use SecuROM as DRM. It would also mean you haven't had any real problems with SecuROM, or you would've actually documented those issues instead of relying on the BS anecdotal crap you've referred to in the past.
If that were the case, you'd have confirmed the problems with SecuROM are heavily overstated, as I've said throughout. So either you actually own tons of SecuROM games and just conveniently failed to mention all of your problems (doubtful) or you don't have many games with SecuROM (likely).
I wasn't talking about myself. I simply feel that stating that you own more games than any other poster displays a considerable degree of arrogance.
LOL, no there's no degree of arrogance and its obvious you're not talking about your non-existent experiences with SecuROM. I've already stated my point of view and stance, using simple logic there's not a whole lot of outcomes possible based on your point of view and comments:
- 1) You don't buy games with SecuROM because you're fundamentally opposed to SecuROM. Most likely scenario, based on your comments but precludes any relevant experience or problems with SecuROM, which is highly likely given you've shown time and again you have no clue how SecuROM works. It also shows you're more focused on spreading misinformation about SecuROM rather than learning about how it actually works.
2) You do buy games with SecuROM but haven't had (m)any problems. Less likely scenario given your anti-SecuROM comments where you repeatedly state it causes more harm than good while defaming and compiling a list of SecuROM games that use it. If this were the case, it would prove any proclaimed problems with SecuROM are grossly overstated.
3) You do buy games with SecuROM and have had numerous problems. Least likely scenario, given you can't give more than a questionable example with Bioshock when asked to provide details of SecuROM problems repeatedly. Also highly unlikely given you'd have to fabricate details to prove a point in the absence of any actual experience, knowledge, or understanding of how SecuROM works.
So again, which scenario fits you best? Or do you have a different outcome that I haven't considered?
We are not asking them to do away with laws and preventative measures. However, laws are amended and rectified in order to ensure that they serve their intended purpose. How many times has the Consitution of the United States been amended since it was drawn up? If we all took your stance, none of these amendments would have been possible.
Amended is very different than abolished or repealed. In the case of amended laws, the fundamental purpose of those laws and preventative measures remain the same, the means in which they are accomplished may change. That is very different than finding a law is unjust or ineffective, in which case it may be abolished or repealed.
If it is true that it maintains Securom in the manner of Fallout 3, it will not be installed on my system. Others will follow suit.
The funniest part of that statement is that Fallout 3, and a few other titles you've mentioned here don't even require your minimum form of DRM, a CD-check.
Once again untrue. Many users are being dissuaded from buying games as a result of Securom. The backlash against EA and other companies on various sites would suggest that the number of people experiencing problems is higher than 1%, without even getting into the issue of rights violation. Where do you get your figures?
Again, doesn't seem like it as the most pirated game of 2008 was still the second best selling game of 2008. As for backlash, I'd say this is an extreme example of a vocal, even rabid minority, clearly overstating a largely insignificant problem with DRM and SecuROM causing problems outside the scope of their intended purpose of enforcement, as DRM. As for where I get my figures, the same place I always do, external links and references based in verifiable fact, evidence, and data. In this case its the % of customer service calls as a % of sales along with the incredibly low number of class action law suits filed because of DRM.
Anti-Securom, not anti-DRM, they are not one and the same.
- DRM needs to be knived, kicked, slashed, burned and beaten. The only form in which I am willing to accept it is in the form of a simple CD-check. Is my stance clear now?
Your words, not mine, so am I lying? Along with the other comments about Steam and DRM you've made in this thread and elsewhere, do you really think anyone believes you're anti-Securom and not anti-DRM?
Yes, you are lying and manipulating facts to suit your agenda.
Huh? How am I lying and manipulating facts to suit my agenda by directly quoting you to refute your own point? It just furthers my point that you really don't know what you're arguing. Its DRM, its SecuROM, its online activation, its CD-check. Again, as I stated originally, its obvious you're against all forms of DRM and unwilling to distinguish between the various forms employed, even if that viewpoint makes you look overly paranoid. There's no need to try and minimize the scope of what forms of DRM you're actually against, you'll just end up contradicting yourself, again.
Mindcycle has started a thread entitled "Good Old Games Interview"......
That's nice, if GOG ever manages to get these publishers to buy into their business model with games newer than 3 years old that most PC gamers don't already own, aren't already borderline abandonware, can be adequately run in software, etc. let me know.
Facebook
Twitter