Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Does this mean you're actually advocating a situation wherein we acquire licences and rent rather than purchase our games? I don't want you to accuse me of misquoting you.
Once again, where do I advocate any form of DRM over another? I've already clearly stated I prefer SecuROM over Steam or any "rental" or "license" form of DRM, which may come as a shocking revelation to you I suppose, but not to the overwhelming majority of people who have absolutely no problems whatsoever with SecuROM and find it less restrictive and less invasive in many ways than the alternatives. [my bold]
Precisely, you don't, which smells of company employee posing as a gamer.
The point is that chizow was arguing in favour of Securom even before this "just released" revoke tool was made available and that this tool has only been made avaialble as a result of pressure from posters such as ourselves.
Just released? The revoke tools were promised at launch and delivered a few months afterwards for games like Spore and Warhead.
Spore Revoke Tool released Dec 18. Just shows you're more interested in spreading misinformation rather than the facts as usual.
I see, so EA is not releasing a series of revoke tools in response to the fiasco they have created as a result of poor judgment when selecting their security? The backlash on all corners of the Internet has not caused them to rethink their strategy at any point and attempt to implement some damage control?
Yes, it can be frustrating, but I refuse to throw in the towel. Hopefully we can convince him/her that our intentions are to improve the gaming experience on the pc for everyone, rather than serving up the entire industry to pirates on a platter. Although, I am not betting on it.
In any event, whether we like it or not, he/she does make some (very few) valid points and, if nothing else, debating with him/her reveals the mindset behind the darker side of security.
Oh believe me, I certainly appreciated this opportunity to adjust my BS meter er, establish credibility for someone who has little posting history here.
Credibility? The same credibility that you have when you repeatedly state that the only interest of the companies when using Securom is to protect their games from pirates.
Not suprising.
Not at all
Yes, we were both mistaken on this point. However, you fail to address the fact that you supported Securom before the revoke tool was released. Moreover, the revoke tool is the result of consumer pressure, which you are clearly not exercising.
No, you were mistaken, I was unclear. But as the quote and my own personal experiences verify, minor hardware and OS changes do not burn installation limits or prevent you from selling such a game as you and others have falsely claimed, again proving you really have no clue how SecuROM works.
Chizow, you ass, when I said "we" I was referring to Golgatha and myself and actually stating that we were both mistaken. Once again, the revoke tool was only released as a result of consumer pressure, which is clearly of no concern to you. You never advocate any action on the issue of Securom and the fact that you seem happy maintaining the status quo and do not report any issues with current DRM once again reeks of company employee rather than gamer. If you are simply a gamer who has no problems with Securom, why have you accumulated extensive knowledge in this area? See what I mean? If you had no hidden agenda or no real stake in this area, you would simply ignore threads discussing the topic and carry on gaming without experiencing any problems.
I'll leave that one to TK149.
Once again, where did the revoke tool spring from and why?
According to you its the result of the Infinite Monkey Theorem where a bunch of idiots who don't actually know how SecuROM works hit the 1-star rating button along with whatever else, ultimately resulting in the source code for the revoke tool you see today.
Concerned consumers are now idiots? That's nice. I suppose you would explain the revoke tools in terms of the goodwill constantly evidenced by the companies rather than consumer pressure?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10046565-52.html
It was actually announced at launch and released months ago, probably to eliminate or reduce the need for live customer support as the function it serves is the same.
Can you accept that this is placing undue restrictions on the legitimate user?
How is it undue restrictions on the legitimate user? You buy a game. You install it. You play it. You want to sell it. You uninstall it. You sell it. The game you sell is identical to the game you bought with all functionality and install limits, provided you didn't burn any of them by wiping your OS. What part is an undue restriction?
The part that was in bold in the original sentence, namely:
EA may not give buyers any more hardware activations, and the company won't promise to allow used games access to the Spore community
Why would EA be concerned with used game access? See the potential restrictions now?
You have still failed to demonstrate that it is innocuous. Simply calling me a liar is not good enough, and I expect more from you.
Calling you a liar is good enough when you've accused SecuROM of being a root kit and malware and you can't even come up with any solid evidence to back up your point. Again, I've asked for simple evidence of any of the problems you've claimed SecuROM causes that would make you believe its a root kit or malware, and all you come up with is some BS about your disc drive that you somehow failed to mention in any of your past replies about it....
I am not alone in viewing Securom as a rootkit, despite all the PR from the companies, just type "Securom + Rootkit" into Google to see the number of poor misinformed idiots:
http://forum.sysinternals.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=12292
As I have stated before, if it has Securom, I won't install it (the Sims isn't my thing anyway). No, I don't find it acceptable. Please clarify why it still has to be Securom? Surely a simple CD-check (as in Oblivion) would serve the same purpose and keep both the companies and potential clients ("clowns"/rabid misinformers such as myself) happy.
LOL, I don't need to claim anything about being more than a simple CD-check. You've claimed Sims 3 is somehow a great victory for "the cause" when its still clearly DRM, still clearly SecuROM and still clearly seen as necessary, reinforcing my points that all forms of DRM are more effective, and therefore necessary than no DRM at all.
Are you sure about that, or are you wrong, again? According to the post below EA are stating that it won't include Securom, does this cause you concern from a professional point of view, or will it not affect you as you are too busy gaming without encountering problems?
http://bbs.thesims2.ea.com/com...b309388dfc6c17cf007a2b
DRM may or may not be effective, but how can the most pirated game of the year have lower piracy rates than other titles? You are reading percentage in comparison to sales, I am reading overall illegal downloads, who is right? Once again, why does it have to be Securom? Let's assume that I am misinformed and that Securom is entirely innocent, why not simply use a CD-check that does not include Securom to keep me and many others happy?
We've already broken down the numbers on Spore numerous times, you've claimed DRM doesn't work because it was still the most downloaded. I've claimed it does work because it was still the 2nd best selling title (#1 simply wasn't pirated), sold more copies than were stolen, and suffered a much lower piracy rate than games with no DRM at all.
Yes, but comparing the percentage of piracy to sales is disingenuous and ignores the fact that it was the most pirated game of the year. The fact that EA is now taking a different route would suggest that they have learned their lesson. Imagine you stole 100,000 dollars from a millionaire, taking your stance, we could simply claim that the amount stolen was relatively small in relation to the millionaire's total assets. Great argument for a court case.
Also, it doesn't have to be SecuROM. You just attached a stigma to it and think its taboo because you don't know what it does or how it actually works. The reality of it is, many other forms of DRM are just as invasive if not moreso.
I am not alone. The perception is widespread throughout the community and attempts to justify the continued use of Securom have more to do with support for fat contracts between EA and Sony than the wishes of gamers.
At least you have had the good judgment to spare tk149. Chizow, at times we may be mistaken, I have yet to see you admit as much and yet we have made convincing arguments against you on numerous occassions. We are not trying to misinform, we are trying to improve the gaming experience on the platform and that means keeping DRM to a minimum.
Why wouldn't I spare him? He hasn't proven to be a dishonest troll over and over again, like you and mindcycle have.
To the best of my knowledge, I have never been dishonest, and where I have been proven wrong, I have stated as much.
But anyways, if you've made a convincing argument make sure to let me know, because I haven't seen anything yet that matches that description, its really the same recycled garbage we've seen through the years.
I think I've done a pretty good job of exposing you for what you are, clearly showing you'll say and fabricate just about anything to back your weak position, while confirming with your own experiences, real or imagined, that the problems with SecuROM and DRM are in fact overstated and largely unjustified.
Yes, that's why various companies are currently engaged in damage control operations to attempt to prove that they really have the wishes of the gaming community at heart. You need to wake up
Facebook
Twitter