Valve's Steamworks makes DRM/Crippleware Obsolete

[WildW]

Originally posted by: skace

Casual piracy is not the same as the warez/cracking scene however it is just as important. It is the casual person who copies a music CD to give to a friend or let's every friend they know borrow their game. It's the most dangerous aspect of piracy because it can occur on a much more massive scale than nitch hardcore cracking piracy.

You are right of course, casual piracy has historically been rampant, and it isn't fair on developers. I do worry though that some folks seem to present the attitude that anything that denies potential profit from game developers is automatically piracy.

It is not piracy to lend games to your friends, in the same way as it isn't piracy to lend your friends anything else. . .books, CDs, or an umbrella. It is not piracy to give games away when you're bored of them, or to sell them on eBay.

What the game developers have done, through limited installs and non-transferable licencing, is to make something that is inherently legal (selling your old software 2nd hand) impossible, in order to try to make more money.

Software purchases with EULAs that state you're only licencing the right to use software are legally dubious. In the US at least First-sale doctrine has long established that software purchases are just that - purchases with the right of resale. Publishers who do this are just trying to exploit people for as much money as they can get.

What on earth was wrong with games that just needed the disc to be present in the drive before they'd run? PC games haven't been casually copyable for a long long time.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: wanderer27
In situation #1 Tom would actually be able to buy another game once he sold three or four used ones (trust me, I have kids that do this).

Situation #2 leaves no resale, so the extra game doesn't get bought = less Company profit.

Lost sales in your situation 1: 4+
Lost sales in your situation 2: 1

No. The fact is: you have no idea if Tom, Dick, or Harry would buy the game under different circumstances. These "scenarios" are as fictional as the rest of your figures. Consumers want the ability to resell and they have had it for a long time. I don't know why this idea seems so toxic to you and the publishing houses. It's just like anything else one owns. What if the auto industry tried to have you arrested for selling a used car? Consumers would be up in arms.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I dislike repeating myself, but a simple CD-key is enough to accomplish these ends.

Not a cd key, however a cd check. However, only if that cd check breaks when the cd is copied. Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnndddddddd now we are back to SecuROM, congrats.

If only a cdkey was required, then I can share my key with you just as easily as I can share the cd. Just like we used to do back in the Sierra days, just like I just damn mentioned.

And you can say "well you still can't get online", oh ok so we are just fucking over the single player devs here, I get it. Then we get back to the argument that the only games developers should bother making are multiplayer because that's where the money is ala MMO#38858574443.

Let's not argue about correct use of terminology. You know what I mean: being forced to keep the DVD in the machine.

 

[wanderer27]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: wanderer27
In situation #1 Tom would actually be able to buy another game once he sold three or four used ones (trust me, I have kids that do this).

Situation #2 leaves no resale, so the extra game doesn't get bought = less Company profit.

Lost sales in your situation 1: 4+
Lost sales in your situation 2: 1

According to the model, those games aren't going to get bought, so it's irrelevant.

In all fairness though, this is probably the same the Companies are viewing it.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Call me old fashioned, but I would rather have the media and be able to do with it what I please (DRM non-withstanding).

Haha so true, using a crappy game as a coaster is a great way to show disappointment.

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Currently, it is not difficult to pirate games, despite the increased levels of DRM. Less security does not imply increased piracy. Spore, the most pirated game of 2008, contained the most draconian form of DRM (Securom) to date. You are perpetuating a lie. DRM has nothing to do with reducing piracy.

That's blatant misinformation, as has been shown numerous times titles that ship without DRM are punished the worst by piracy. High piracy totals are very different from high piracy rates:

90% Piracy Rate for Soccer Game Manager
90% Piracy Rate for World of Goo

Prince of Persia with no DRM had over 100k torrent downloads on its PC launch date and will undoubtedly have a higher piracy rate than Assassin's Creed, which only included a simple disc check and suffered over 1 million pirated copies.

Also, you continuously fail to mention that despite being the most pirated game of 2008 with ~1.7 million downloads, it was also one of the best-selling and sold nearly 2 million units in its first 3 weeks. So again, while total pirated copies was the highest, its piracy rate is clearly much lower than games that have no DRM. Just thought you'd like to know, seeing as you're so against perpetuating lies and all.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: fatpat268
Once again... how would that benefit steam to be able to resell your digital copy. There's no tangible item containing that digital copy like conventional game discs. They won't make any money off the reselling at all, and they lose a potential sale by allowing someone else to sell their software.

A tale of Tom, Dick and Harry

Situation 1
A few years ago, Tom buys a copy of Doom 3. He completes the game and sells it to Dick. Harry pirates the game.

Company profit = 1 game sale

Situation 2
Tom buys a copy of Left for Dead [read any game via Steam or any game that contains Securom with activation limits]. He completes the game but can?t resell it. Dick doesn?t buy the game. Harry pirates the game.

Company profit = 1 game sale

These hypothetical situations draw attention to two things: the companies are concentrating on Dick [pun intended]; DRM does not represent a method of protecting their existing markets, but rather an attempt to open up new markets i.e. the companies want to arrive at a situation wherein Dick is forced to buy the full-price retail game if he wants to play. However, if Dick does not buy the game, this does not represent a lost sale for the company, but rather, a sale they never would have made in the first place. Harry, you will note, is unaffected in either situation. Tom, in the second situation, is obviously not as happy as he was in situation 1 as he has been unable to recover any money via resale.

When I start to hear sentences that begin with ?you can?t expect the companies to??, or statements that express similar sentiments, I am utterly perplexed. By clamping down on the second-hand market, the companies are not protecting their own interests from pirates, but rather limiting our interests and rights as consumers. Should we really be defending this situation?

Whether or not copy protection scheme A is preferable to scheme B is largely irrelevant to me. Neither system is necessary, despite the fact that they are, by and large, unavoidable in the current gaming context. We may prove incapable of redressing a situation wherein the companies are abusing paying clients in order to attempt to increase their profit margin; however, we don?t have to take it lying down and we certainly don?t need to act as apologists for such practices. There is far too much flipper-flapping applause in the face of a few rotten fish.

No shit situation 1 is better than situation 2. I'm not debating that.

What I'm saying is... Steam is a company out to make money. These publisher companies do not like second hand game sales as it produces them no new revenue. And really, you can't expect Steam to open up their system to allow you to sell your digital copy to someone else. Why? Well, a digital copy is just simply not tangible. In the past you a physical item that you were selling. Here a digital copy represents more bandwidth used for steam. Why would steam allow someone else to be able to download a game, even though they haven't payed a dime to steam?

Like I said before, don't like situation 2? Don't buy steam games. Personally I love it. I like the fact that I can download games on a whim and have them ready in a few hours. I like the fact that I don't have to dig around for my game discs when I reformat. Some of you guys have a few problems with the service (or base your opinions on the service from HL2's launch) and think the service is bad for everyone. It's not. Frankly, I wish more of my games were steam games.

Also, DRM is there on steam to protect their interests. Whether you like it or not, if there were no DRM on these games, they'd be pirated to hell and back. Just take a look at the Dreamcast for example. Once people realized games had effectively no protection, it became heavily pirated. It'd be even worse now, as more and more people are learning how to access these pirated files.

You can sit in your perfect dreamworld and think companies will give away their bandwidth to users so you can make a buck... but it just ain't happening, and frankly I don't see the argument. Once again, when you buy a steam game, you know exactly what you're getting into.

Originally posted by: lupi

And yet reselling/renting is one of the major foundations to the console market that is seeing $$$ increases.

Maybe so, but can you resell x360 arcade games, or PSN games (well technically you could... but it's more of a workaround). No, didn't think so.

Console games have physical disks. It's different from digital copies of games.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: WildW

Originally posted by: skace

Casual piracy is not the same as the warez/cracking scene however it is just as important. It is the casual person who copies a music CD to give to a friend or let's every friend they know borrow their game. It's the most dangerous aspect of piracy because it can occur on a much more massive scale than nitch hardcore cracking piracy.

You are right of course, casual piracy has historically been rampant, and it isn't fair on developers. I do worry though that some folks seem to present the attitude that anything that denies potential profit from game developers is automatically piracy.

It is not piracy to lend games to your friends, in the same way as it isn't piracy to lend your friends anything else. . .books, CDs, or an umbrella. It is not piracy to give games away when you're bored of them, or to sell them on eBay.

What the game developers have done, through limited installs and non-transferable licencing, is to make something that is inherently legal (selling your old software 2nd hand) impossible, in order to try to make more money.

Software purchases with EULAs that state you're only licencing the right to use software are legally dubious. In the US at least First-sale doctrine has long established that software purchases are just that - purchases with the right of resale. Publishers who do this are just trying to exploit people for as much money as they can get.

What on earth was wrong with games that just needed the disc to be present in the drive before they'd run? PC games haven't been casually copyable for a long long time.

Wild, this is precisely what I have been trying to say over the course of several posts. However, I fear that, once again, it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Red Irish]

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Call me old fashioned, but I would rather have the media and be able to do with it what I please (DRM non-withstanding).

Haha so true, using a crappy game as a coaster is a great way to show disappointment.

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Currently, it is not difficult to pirate games, despite the increased levels of DRM. Less security does not imply increased piracy. Spore, the most pirated game of 2008, contained the most draconian form of DRM (Securom) to date. You are perpetuating a lie. DRM has nothing to do with reducing piracy.

That's blatant misinformation, as has been shown numerous times titles that ship without DRM are punished the worst by piracy. High piracy totals are very different from high piracy rates:

90% Piracy Rate for Soccer Game Manager
90% Piracy Rate for World of Goo

Prince of Persia with no DRM had over 100k torrent downloads on its PC launch date and will undoubtedly have a higher piracy rate than Assassin's Creed, which only included a simple disc check and suffered over 1 million pirated copies.

Also, you continuously fail to mention that despite being the most pirated game of 2008 with ~1.7 million downloads, it was also one of the best-selling and sold nearly 2 million units in its first 3 weeks. So again, while total pirated copies was the highest, its piracy rate is clearly much lower than games that have no DRM. Just thought you'd like to know, seeing as you're so against perpetuating lies and all.

Hombre, chizow, good to see you back. Are you on your lunch break or are you still working in the EA office?

Figures are open to interpretation. However, the fact that Spore is the most pirated game of the 2008 suggests that the security did not work. Can I get you to accept that?

I am not suggesting that DRM-free games are not pirated. All games are, whether they contain DRM ort otherwise. So what's the point in maintaining DRM methods that annoy customers or infringe upon [Skace, note that I avoided using vulnerate here] our rights as consumers.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Um, exactly. Not everybody is a pirate. Just as not everybody who buys a game would give it to a friend. You've made my point, thank you.

Jesus christ.

Ok. A TECHNICAL reason why I would buy a game over warez. Not a feel good Disney reason.

The reason is irrelevant. You don't know the actual piracy rates on an entirely hypothetical situation that you've made up to badly illustrate your point, which is already unclear. P2P as a channel is more dangerous than casual piracy, end of story. I don't know why you've got a boner for people who loan games to friends when millions of copies are distributed via BitTorrent every year. And the DRM used to stop that is completely ineffective.

Regardless, even with knowledge and availability, not everybody will pirate given the opportunity. Your "50% loss of sales" is BS, just as if I said P2P could potentially result in near-100% loss of sales.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: fatpat268


Like I said before, don't like situation 2? Don't buy steam games. .

Thanks for clarifying your position Pat. I can't argue with that.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Hombre, chizow, good to see you back. Are you on your lunch break or are still working in the EA office?

Back? /Checks join date. My born-on date predates both you and your mortal enemies Steam and SecuROM thanks.

EA's corporate offices are in CA last time I checked, 7:20am lunches would be a bit early don't you think? But of course you don't know anything about me really, I do know your comments and accusations come as no surprise coming from someone clearly intent on spreading misinformation.

Figures are open to interpretation. However, the fact that Spore is the most pirated game of the 2008 suggests that the security did not work. Can I get you to accept that?

Actually it shows it was an incredibly popular title despite its negative aspects, like SecuROM, appealed to a large target audience. Some chose to steal it. Some chose to buy it. MORE CHOSE TO BUY THAN STEAL. The same cannot be said of the titles above that had no DRM. Claiming otherwise would be perpetuating lies and misinformation, something you've said numerous times you're firmly against.

I am not suggesting that DRM-free games are not pirated. All games are, whether they contain DRM ort otherwise. So whats the point in maintaining DRM methods that annoy customers or infringe upon [Skace, note that I avoided using vulnerate here] our rights as consumers.

That is all

No one said DRM is perfect, but its clearly more effective at preventing piracy than no DRM. That's all.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy


I don't understand your point. It's the same whether or not there's a tangible item. If you buy a retail boxed copy of a game and resell it, the publisher/distributor/whoever isn't seeing a dime of that.

And I don't understand yours. If I trade a game (with a physical disk) with you, I'm giving you an actual object for another (money or another game). If I trade a digital copy, what am I giving you? Nothing really.

It's essentially the same argument in piracy discussions. Piracy isn't stealing by definition because you haven't taken any physical object away.

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: skace
Casual piracy is not the same as the warez/cracking scene however it is just as important. It is the casual person who copies a music CD to give to a friend or let's every friend they know borrow their game. It's the most dangerous aspect of piracy because it can occur on a much more massive scale than nitch hardcore cracking piracy.

I assume you have some numbers to back this up. "The most dangerous aspect"? Really? Giving copies of a CD to friends is "massive" in scale? No, I think not. The warez scene seems to be much more pervasive and leads to the almost universal availability of new releases to the P2P crowd.

Your example of the music CD is curious. For the most part, there is no DRM on music CDs. Ripping tracks is absolutely trivial, literally one click. And yet people are still buying CDs and digital copies.

Also, if we're going to nitpick: nitch?

Casual piracy is the most dangerous of them all. Not everyone is technical and knows how to browse newsgroups, torrent sites, irc, rapidshare sites, ftp's, etc, and download and crack these files. But, if they realize they can copy these music cd's, games, movies, whatever easily, they will.

How do I know this? Because I did, along with several of my friends many years ago. We'd copy cd's and trade them with each other. I specifically remember looking through my friends pc game collection and picking some out and did a simple cd copy. Mind you, this was nearly ten years ago, it was a lot tougher back then to do that than it is now.

But yes, casual piracy spreads fast. Your friend then shares that copy with someone else, and then it shared again...yadda yadda yadda. The scene piracy scene, is such a niche "market" that the people involved, really don't even want to share.

 

[WildW]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
Um, exactly. Not everybody is a pirate. Just as not everybody who buys a game would give it to a friend. You've made my point, thank you.

Jesus christ.

Ok. A TECHNICAL reason why I would buy a game over warez. Not a feel good Disney reason.

All the moral choices we make ultimately come down to feel-good Disney reasons. Think of any crime that it is possible to commit that has an outcome favourable to the person doing it. There is no technical reason not to do anything if you think you won't get caught - most of us just think its wrong to do these things so we don't.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Hombre, chizow, good to see you back. Are you on your lunch break or are still working in the EA office?

Back? /Checks join date. My born-on date predates both you and your mortal enemies Steam and SecuROM thanks.

EA's corporate offices are in CA last time I checked, 7:20am lunches would be a bit early don't you think? But of course you don't know anything about me really, I do know your comments and accusations come as no surprise coming from someone clearly intent on spreading misinformation.

Figures are open to interpretation. However, the fact that Spore is the most pirated game of the 2008 suggests that the security did not work. Can I get you to accept that?

Actually it shows it was an incredibly popular title despite its negative aspects, like SecuROM, appealed to a large target audience. Some chose to steal it. Some chose to buy it. MORE CHOSE TO BUY THAN STEAL. The same cannot be said of the titles above that had no DRM. Claiming otherwise would be perpetuating lies and misinformation, something you've said numerous times you're firmly against.

I am not suggesting that DRM-free games are not pirated. All games are, whether they contain DRM or otherwise. So whats the point in maintaining DRM methods that annoy customers or infringe upon [Skace, note that I avoided using vulnerate here] our rights as consumers.

That is all

No one said DRM is perfect, but its clearly more effective at preventing piracy than no DRM. That's all.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, I meant back on the thread.

I'm on European time, so, once again, sorry.

I accept that the DRM on Spore did not prevent massive sales. However, we cannot ignore the subsequent complaints and widespread backlash against EA across the Web as a result of the Securom contained on the game. Is that misinformation?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: fatpat268

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy


I don't understand your point. It's the same whether or not there's a tangible item. If you buy a retail boxed copy of a game and resell it, the publisher/distributor/whoever isn't seeing a dime of that.

And I don't understand yours. If I trade a game (with a physical disk) with you, I'm giving you an actual object for another (money or another game). If I trade a digital copy, what am I giving you? Nothing really.

Then why should Steam charge me for the game in the first place if they've given me nothing? This argument makes no sense. It doesn't matter what medium is transferred, ownership of the game can change hands even with a digital copy.

Casual piracy is the most dangerous of them all. Not everyone is technical and knows how to browse newsgroups, torrent sites, irc, rapidshare sites, ftp's, etc, and download and crack these files. But, if they realize they can copy these music cd's, games, movies, whatever easily, they will.

How do I know this? Because I did, along with several of my friends many years ago. We'd copy cd's and trade them with each other. I specifically remember looking through my friends pc game collection and picking some out and did a simple cd copy. Mind you, this was nearly ten years ago, it was a lot tougher back then to do that than it is now.

But yes, casual piracy spreads fast. Your friend then shares that copy with someone else, and then it shared again...yadda yadda yadda. The scene piracy scene, is such a niche "market" that the people involved, really don't even want to share.

Yeah, "casual piracy" has existed for a long time, before it was even called that. Notice how the music industry didn't die from people trading mix tapes or giving copies to friends before the CD or copy protection existed. There are always some technical barriers to casual copying, but they've been pretty low in the past and it hasn't destroyed these markets.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: fatpat268


Like I said before, don't like situation 2? Don't buy steam games. .

Thanks for clarifying your position Pat. I can't argue with that.

You're welcome. What else do you want me to say?

If you don't like the situation then don't enter it, simple as that. Even more so when it's extremely unlikely for steam to change from it's current business model.

If they ever do allow you to trade games, I'll eat my words... whatever.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: fatpat268

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: fatpat268


Like I said before, don't like situation 2? Don't buy steam games. .

Thanks for clarifying your position Pat. I can't argue with that.

You're welcome. What else do you want me to say?

If you don't like the situation then don't enter it, simple as that. Even more so when it's extremely unlikely for steam to change from it's current business model.

If they ever do allow you to trade games, I'll eat my words... whatever.

I agree. I don't think your words need to be fearful of your appetite in the foreseeable future.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: fatpat268

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: fatpat268


Like I said before, don't like situation 2? Don't buy steam games. .

Thanks for clarifying your position Pat. I can't argue with that.

You're welcome. What else do you want me to say?

If you don't like the situation then don't enter it, simple as that. Even more so when it's extremely unlikely for steam to change from it's current business model.

If they ever do allow you to trade games, I'll eat my words... whatever.

I highly doubt that Steam disallows trading just because it would cost them bandwidth. If that were the argument, they could say the same about allowing one person to install on multiple machines. They already allow "gift copies" as well.

Hell, they could even charge a transaction fee for every trade, and allow the traders to arrange payment through some other avenue if they didn't want to set up some support service for that. No, the reason they don't allow reselling or trading is because the publishers don't want them to.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I highly doubt that Steam disallows trading just because it would cost them bandwidth. If that were the argument, they could say the same about allowing one person to install on multiple machines. They already allow "gift copies" as well.

Hell, they could even charge a transaction fee for every trade, and allow the traders to arrange payment through some other avenue if they didn't want to set up some support service for that. No, the reason they don't allow reselling or trading is because the publishers don't want them to.

At least one person is starting to get it, thank god.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I dislike repeating myself, but a simple CD-key is enough to accomplish these ends.

Not a cd key, however a cd check. However, only if that cd check breaks when the cd is copied. Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnndddddddd now we are back to SecuROM, congrats.

If only a cdkey was required, then I can share my key with you just as easily as I can share the cd. Just like we used to do back in the Sierra days, just like I just damn mentioned.

And you can say "well you still can't get online", oh ok so we are just fucking over the single player devs here, I get it. Then we get back to the argument that the only games developers should bother making are multiplayer because that's where the money is ala MMO#38858574443.

Let's not argue about correct use of terminology. You know what I mean: being forced to keep the DVD in the machine.

I like how you didn't respond to a single thing in my post. I've left it there in case the ridiculous happens and you actually begin reading.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: wanderer27
According to the model, those games aren't going to get bought, so it's irrelevant.
In all fairness though, this is probably the same the Companies are viewing it.

So if nobody can buy used then nobody is going to play the next hottest game? I'm sorry, bullshit. Gamers have been brought to task time and time again. And when push comes to shove they always buy the latest and greatest even if it costs $100 and requires them to install it via punch cards.

Not only is that theoretically bullshit, Steam has already proved that untrue with several of their major successes.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, I meant back on the thread.

I'm on European time, so, once again, sorry.

I accept that the DRM on Spore did not prevent massive sales. However, we cannot ignore the subsequent complaints and widespread backlash against EA across the Web as a result of the Securom contained on the game. Is that misinformation?

Nope, no problem with that, but that's very different than what you originally claimed, that DRM does not do anything to prevent piracy when that claim is provably false.

Anyways, carry on.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I dislike repeating myself, but a simple CD-key is enough to accomplish these ends.

Not a cd key, however a cd check. However, only if that cd check breaks when the cd is copied. Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnndddddddd now we are back to SecuROM, congrats.

If only a cdkey was required, then I can share my key with you just as easily as I can share the cd. Just like we used to do back in the Sierra days, just like I just damn mentioned.

And you can say "well you still can't get online", oh ok so we are just fucking over the single player devs here, I get it. Then we get back to the argument that the only games developers should bother making are multiplayer because that's where the money is ala MMO#38858574443.

Let's not argue about correct use of terminology. You know what I mean: being forced to keep the DVD in the machine.

I like how you didn't respond to a single thing in my post. I've left it there in case the ridiculous happens and you actually begin reading.

I felt that I had responded to each of your posts. I am not sure that you have replied to any of my counter arguments. Still, that is by no means a requirement.

A CD-check will deter the casual pirates that you defined in previous posts. Piracy will never be eradicated or prevented. I feel that cheaper games and less draconian security would encourage sales, but that's just an opinion.

I don't fully understand your second paragraph. If you mean that a failure to enforce online activation for single-player games would give rise to higher piracy rates whilst affecting sales, then I disagree. My evidence? DRM does little or nothing to prevent piracy. Check the figures for yourself. Many would argue that DRM has actually encouraged piracy or turned potential customers away.

I have read what you have written. The fact that I disagree may say more about the force of your arguments rather than my ability to comprehend. In any event, there is no need to insult me, it will not add weight to your arguments.

You are way off topic here. The issue is the second-hand market rather than piracy. However, I am sure that Valve and EA prefer to have discussion focus exclusively on the subject of piracy rather than have anyone address the issue of consumer rights. I assume that such rights are simply collateral damage in the holy crusade against piracy?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, I meant back on the thread.

I'm on European time, so, once again, sorry.

I accept that the DRM on Spore did not prevent massive sales. However, we cannot ignore the subsequent complaints and widespread backlash against EA across the Web as a result of the Securom contained on the game. Is that misinformation?

Nope, no problem with that, but that's very different than what you originally claimed, that DRM does not do anything to prevent piracy when that claim is provably false.

Anyways, carry on.

Protection obviously protects; however, where it fails to significantly reduce piracy whilst aggravating paying customers it is overstepping the line and is no longer justified. CD-checks were enough. Securom and Steam are more concerned with abolishing the second-hand market and this is where the companies become legitimate targets for criticism. Any misinformation here?