SecuROM

[taB]

use as in play/run software/etc. I'm somewhat sure they didn't mean use as in make cracked copies to give your 10.000.000 mates on the web o0

To clarify, I was backing up Gaffer's final point. I don't use pirated software and haven't done for about a decade.

 

[TdC]

sorry, I have man flu and a bit of a fever. brain no worky too good

 

[Raven]

I agree with what DaGaffer says, however, if when I buy a game and install it I find they have installed something else onto my PC which I had no chance whatsoever of stopping, and no way of removing then I think I am within my rights to have a few freebies from them.

It could be argued that SecuRom is illegal, indeed there is currently a case going to the American courts.

So fuck them really, they infect my PC with junk that cannot be removed I help myself to some of their product. Sounds fair to me.

 

[DaGaffer]

I am not playing semantics I am trying to point out the straw man argument that software companies often use.

Fraud is treated differently from bank robbery. Therefore software piracy should be treated differently from say stealing a car. Yet the advertisement I see from the software companies is: "You wouldn't steal a car..." I am not saying it isn't wrong I am simply saying it should be treated separately. And yes I do think there is a different morality involved.

Software piracy is treated differently from other kinds of theft. Just because an ad campaign talks about stealing a car doesn't mean a judge treats it that way. Nonetheless, it's still a crime. Do I think those ads (and the knock-off Nigel ones) work? No, because they're incredibly patronising, but that's a matter of execution rather than a fundamental moral argument.

The point I was answering was that if we all pirated software there wouldn't be any. I was simply pointing out there is software that is free for the user and still being developed.

And you used a poor example. Most quality software is paid for, and comparing a game to a browser is disengenious.

I didn't say it was right to pirate the game. I simply said it wouldn't be worth paying for a DRM version of it.

Then I'm sorry. But you have to admit most people who defend piracy take that stance.

They don't spend a fortune when you compare games to other branded products. Once the product has been made they can produce them effectively for free so they can give out as many trial versions or free samples without it costing them. Normal products can't do that and so it costs them more to advertise.

Sorry but this is just flat wrong. Once again it confuses the cost of physical disc production with the intellectual capital invested. Disc production costs are trivial compared to dev costs, but in addition the actual marketing, advertising and often, rights costs, are a massive part of the budget for an awful lot of games. EA's marketing budget for something like FIFA 09 is as big as any media launch in any sector (in fact, quite a lot bigger), and using EA as an example again, it spent 16% of turnover on marketing last year, which, by the way, is more than a lot of other companies in "traditional" industries (e.g. Ford spent 13.7%). This is one of the great misconceptions about games that I've heard for years. The cheap cost of discs has next to nothing to do with the cost of making a game. Its also why online distribution isn't quite as cheap relative to physical distribution as you'd think; swapping disc production and trucks for servers and bandwidth doesn't save that much, although cutting out wholesale and retail does, and even that's not as big a benefit as you may think because if you lose retail from the mix you'll still end up with a middleman, called Google.

You have accused people of being thieves for downloading before knowing if they have also got a legitimate version of it. Yet now you say that its ok to steal stuff if you already have a copy?

You know what I was talking about. I was referring to people who simply pirate. If you've bought a copy of a game then download a crack (as I've done in the past when DRM simply wouldn't let the game work), you've already bought a licence to use the IP and there is no loss to the publisher.

 

[nath]

I don't think anyone here is trying to suggest piracy is OK. I'll admit, I've done it but I'm not trying to hold any moral high ground here. The point is, there are several games out there now that I would quite like to PAY for. SecuROM has made it so that it's far more attractive to pirate - surely that TOTALLY defeats the point. So my question was, surely they've had meetings/discussions and at some point the developers/publishers decided that it made sense to include it.

Why?

I find it hard to believe they can all be so stupid and blind to the fact that hackers will break their software, and quickly. So what's the benefit? Is casual copying between mates that big an issue? Do they even think that the kids that can't lend a copy to their friend will not just go and download it instead? What's going on?



Oh and with regards to piracy not being theft issue, the reason I brought it up was not because I think legally it's different (because clearly it is, and treated as such) but precisely BECAUSE of the adverts, knock-off nigel, you wouldn't steal a handbag etc. They are NOT the same thing, legally OR MORALLY so I think it's a fucking stupid thing to try and convince us otherwise. They'd be far better of putting out a genuine ad explaining why piracy is bad. The fact that when you use a torrent you're assisting countless others to pirate too. The fact that lost revenue affects the quality of the end product and only serves to harm the industry that you're involved in. Comparing pirating a game or a movie from a massive company to stealing an old ladies handbag is absolutely moronic. Trying to make themselves out to be victims worthy of pity really fucks me off. Be honest about the situation and you'll get far more respect and understanding than making up bullshit.

 

[Cadelin]

And you used a poor example. Most quality software is paid for, and comparing a game to a browser is disengenious.

It was still a valid example but if you insist on games how about
FreeCol
There are also hundreds of little flash games that are free to play.

Then I'm sorry. But you have to admit most people who defend piracy take that stance.

You should be able to separate personal views when having an arguments. I don't pirate (as far as I am aware) but I don't think that should affect what people think of my opinions. The industry is going about solving the piracy problem very badly and although two wrongs don't make a right I cannot see what else people can do.

Sorry but this is just flat wrong. Once again it confuses the cost of physical disc production with the intellectual capital invested. Disc production costs are trivial compared to dev costs, but in addition the actual marketing, advertising and often, rights costs, are a massive part of the budget for an awful lot of games. EA's marketing budget for something like FIFA 09 is as big as any media launch in any sector (in fact, quite a lot bigger), and using EA as an example again, it spent 16% of turnover on marketing last year, which, by the way, is more than a lot of other companies in "traditional" industries (e.g. Ford spent 13.7%). This is one of the great misconceptions about games that I've heard for years. The cheap cost of discs has next to nothing to do with the cost of making a game. Its also why online distribution isn't quite as cheap relative to physical distribution as you'd think; swapping disc production and trucks for servers and bandwidth doesn't save that much, although cutting out wholesale and retail does, and even that's not as big a benefit as you may think because if you lose retail from the mix you'll still end up with a middleman, called Google.

I didn't reallise EA and other spent so much on marketing, I have rarely seen them advertise and I would consider myself more than just a casual game player.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

The one-time code based registration system you mention, is that like the old cd-key check? How does it stack up with repeat installs etc?

It's along those lines, yes. There's lots of ways you can get our game (through shops, through Steam etc.) but all require registration. Each person who has purchased the game has 5 install licenses, meaning they can install it on 5 different machines. Unlike Spore though, these licenses are eternal; meaning that if you uninstall from one machine you get a license back. I believe this is how iTunes does it. This means that if the user has any problems with installs etc., as long as it is uninstalled then they have lost nothing. It also means the user can install it on work PCs, laptops and home PCs. The other good thing is that you won't need the disc after use, since you only need to activate each license once. It basically means you'll get the game, install it, run it, activate it and then it's like any other computer application you own.

In theory it all sounds fantastic and we have been assured that it should work well. The truth is we'll have no real idea on how 'hassle-free' this will be until it hits the shops and the usual mass of people start playing.

This should make for an easier time for the legitimate user. However, because it is code based, there is no way that the pirates will be held off for long. At SI we are fortunate in that because our game sells so many copies that any piracy doesn't affect us hugely and is more a disappointing annoyance than "OMFG we didn't get money from people who weren't going to buy the game anyway!!11"

 

[nath]

See, here's the thing. I have a feeling that that will eventually become a pain. We *all* know that those who want to pirate it will have no problem doing so, so the question is - why have that install limit at all? I can't see any benefit for it, only hindrance to paying customers. Anywhere else this question is asked it's either ignored or sidelined by telling us the benefits it brings (no CD required to play). That's all well and good, but DRM is surely all about anti-piracy, so if it's completely ineffectual at stopping pirates, why include it? I mean purely from a financial perspective, what's the point in paying to have this extra crap in the game?

 

[rynnor]

See, here's the thing. I have a feeling that that will eventually become a pain. We *all* know that those who want to pirate it will have no problem doing so, so the question is - why have that install limit at all? I can't see any benefit for it, only hindrance to paying customers. Anywhere else this question is asked it's either ignored or sidelined by telling us the benefits it brings (no CD required to play). That's all well and good, but DRM is surely all about anti-piracy, so if it's completely ineffectual at stopping pirates, why include it? I mean purely from a financial perspective, what's the point in paying to have this extra crap in the game?

Aye this is a good question - I have actually avoided playing certain games entirely because of crap DRM which is costing them revenue.

I didnt pirate em tho - I just bought other games - not like theres a shortage on the market.

I think your on to something here since its costing them money, hurting their reputation, annoying people who actually buy it and not actually preventing piracy - not to mention actually dissuading some people from buying their game.

Seems a bit silly ?

 

[nath]

There is a shortage of decent games out *without* drm though

 

[SilverHood]

One reason for DRM, especially EA's DRM, is to limit resale. Basically killing the second hand market for games.

I don't mind piracy protection, but when it starts messing about with my machine, I draw the line. My PC works becuase I keep it clean and tidy, and I don't need stuff installed that does covert things. Had one CD drive break due to StarForce, and only google skills saved it from the scrap heap.

 

[nath]

Ah ok, so they don't like the second hand market, that makes sense. However, I'd have thought those that can no longer buy second hand games might be drawn in to piracy rather than buying an original. That added to the sheer volume of people it pisses off, presumably it's barely even worth it?

Although I guess they've taken all of these things in to account. I just wish they'd be honest about their motives - DRM is clearly not an anti piracy measure because it simply doesn't work.

 

[inactionman]

I really can't stand DRM, it doesn't stop piracy, it just inconveniences people who actually buy the game. When someone who pirates a game gets a better product (same game but no drm/malware interfering with their computers operation/stability) you know somethings wrong! Although I have nothing against steam, that seems to work fine for me.

These days I just image my computer before I play a game with DRM, then restore the image after I finish it.

 

[GReaper]

It's amazing how many different industries get things wrong by offering lower quality versions of their products when the pirates offer a superior version.

The music industry took action against anyone offering MP3s and it took them far too long to come up with an online service to buy tracks. Eventually they did and come up with DRM encumbered files. The pirates offering wins yet again as MP3s play anywhere, yet DRM restricted files are limited.

Now the games industry is trying to lock people further into DRM which more draconian schemes, meaning the pirates offering is cheaper (free) and has the DRM restrictions removed.

The last non-MMORPG game which I bought in a store was Tribes: Vengeance, it's just a typical example of stupid restrictions. Even though the majority of the game is focused towards online multiplayer action, the damn thing required the DVD in the drive to run. So even though you needed an account to play online, they took stupid measures just to protect the minor single player part of the game.

It puts me off buying games.

 

[Ctuchik]

the people who tend to download games really dont give a shit they wont think oh that game has secuROM i best go out and buy it they will simply sit back and think meh this one wont be available for a while but regardless they will still wait for a cracked copy to appear

cracked copies of a secuROM game is usually up for grabs before the retail game is released.

and those that aint usually are so bad theres almost noone that want it anyway.

so no, secuROM isnt actually doing anything at all to prevent ppl from pirating the games. for example, far cry 2 was out on a "famous" torrent site almost a week before it got to the retail stores.

 

[Ctuchik]

Ah ok, so they don't like the second hand market, that makes sense. However, I'd have thought those that can no longer buy second hand games might be drawn in to piracy rather than buying an original.

yep, thats exactly what secuROM does. it makes MORE ppl pirate their games, not less.

 

[rynnor]

There is a shortage of decent games out *without* drm though

Not if you play MMO's - no copy protection since you need an account

This is why I think thin client/ Fat server is the way forward for them.

 

[Cadelin]

Not if you play MMO's - no copy protection since you need an account

This is why I think thin client/ Fat server is the way forward for them.

*cough* freeshards *cough*

 

[nath]

Assuming that's just pirate servers, I think they're ok. The reason being, there is an incentive to pay for the game, you get a proper account on a proper server. There's issues of reliability, the fact that you know your account will be safe etc. etc. When you play on a cracked server with an MMO (which is inherently a long term thing) you've always got the risk of the server owners saying "fuck it" and packing things up.

When the pay-for option is better than the pirate option, everyone is* happy.



*Should be

 

[rynnor]

Assuming that's just pirate servers, I think they're ok. The reason being, there is an incentive to pay for the game, you get a proper account on a proper server. There's issues of reliability, the fact that you know your account will be safe etc. etc. When you play on a cracked server with an MMO (which is inherently a long term thing) you've always got the risk of the server owners saying "fuck it" and packing things up.

When the pay-for option is better than the pirate option, everyone is* happy.



*Should be

Aye + free shards suck - reverse engineered, different code, different behaviour, full of twinks / cheats etc - you get what you pay for.

 

[Raven]

But then did any MMO have problems with pirates? When has any MMO used pointless DRM? Single player games could use a log-in server to detect you are legit, there are so many ways they could reduce piracy but they just can't be arsed, they would rather punish everyone and have something to blame poor sales on than sort themselves out.

 

[nath]

I don't think there are many things they can do to reduce piracy. Single player games will always be possible to hack so that it can run completely independently of activation/whatever. It seems clear to me that the best thing to do is compete with the pirates, offer something that they can't. At the moment they're going the opposite direction.

 

[Yaka]

!

There's an exception to this rule, but it's a one man development team, and he had a very straightforward discussion with his customers/potential customers. It resulted in him removing all copy-protection measures from his forthcoming games. Can't remember the guy though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positech_Games

Positech Games - Developers of Kudos, Democracy, Rock Legend and more...

 

[nath]

Yup, spot on Yaka.

 

[Rulke]

I'll admit to downloading games but usually to test the water before buying and 99% of the time I will pay for the game if I enjoy it. Won't be paying for anything known to use SecuROM in future after my experiences with spore. Was playing it 3 days prior to release fine with a downloaded copy - got my legit copy on release day... and spent 2 hours struggling to reinstall it from the proper disk before going back to the pirate copy.

I also download US TV shows and I don't really have any excuse for that. I would ask though - do people who believe downloading TV to be piracy also think Tivo/sky+ are? Both allow you to skip adverts...
I still remember how shocked I was when Lost came on TV at just how much advertising they squeezed into it...after watching it for a year with ads editted out it was apalling.

Also, re: movies. After paying £7.50 for a cinema ticket tonight I think they're making enough money off me!

 

[Ctuchik]

*cough* freeshards *cough*

sure, but freeshards aint nearly as big of a problem as actual piracy is.

mostly because a freeshard server is a bit dodgy in general concerning fairnes and other such stuff. so there really aint THAT many using them.


99% of the players much rather pay the sub and know they get a pretty decent game experience then playing for free and risk losing everything they have because the server owner grew tired and shut the server down.

or just decided that he wanted to play god and deleted every toon on his server just because he could...

or just plain fucked the server up so badly theres no saving it because of his dodgy coding skills.

but that doesent say freeshards is NO problem, they probably are. but i doubt its THAT big a problem.

 

[Ctuchik]

there are so many ways they could reduce piracy

as in?

 

[Raven]

as in?

A steam type program
On-line CD key verification, works only with the disk you put in at install, make the game completely locked until you unlock it via the server.
Encrypted USB dongles? I am sure with the massive mark up on games they could absorb a couple of quid for a small usb disk.
Reduce the cost of some games, why does a clearly shit title cost the same as a decent title? If they have made a stinker and know they have made a stinker they should sell it cheaper. I know its not good business sense but it stops everyone trying before they buy. I have personally bought quite a few of the bargain bin titles from steam when bored.
Online content that can only be aquired through server verification, be it extra items, levels, maps etc.
Decent online play to make pirate versions less attractive as you would not be able to play them online.

etc

 

[Helme]

Can't really find the article anymore, but there was an interview(I think it was mentioned earlier) with Stardock, makers of Sins of a Solar Empire amongst other things - and they pretty much removed copy protection and saw a big increase in sales just after that announcement, even more - they did something very rare for PC games, they offered a FULL refund if the game didn't work on your PC, which again increased sales alot - surprisingly though, it was very few people who actually returned the game, but they gained quite alot of sales because people knew that if the game didn't work for any reason, they could return it and get the money back.

They also used the by far best real 'copy protection' since Steam, if you install the game from the CD, you can then play fine without using said CD again - if you want to play online, you need a CD-Key, if you want to update your game - you need to logon with your CD-key locked account, thats pretty much it.

Also I want to give "some" mention to Bethesda and Fallout 3, even after the game got leaked to the 360 16 days before official release, they didnt punish the PC players with retarded DRM, just a simple CD check.

 

[nath]

That's outdated news Helme - Fallout 3 does have full-on DRM now. 5 activations and then you have to beg customer support to give you more.