Spore DRM

[sojrner]

But as far as DRM not stopping piracy you need stop looking at it so narrowly from just the torrent/black market angle. DRM does prevent otherwise normal users from casually just passing a game on. People who wouldn't otherwise spend the time trying to find a torrent or crack a game. Those are the real customers game companies are trying sell to. The hardcore and comercial pirates are not going to by won over or convinced either way. So it that case you are right that DRM does not deter them. But getting average Joe to buy a game rather than just copy it from his buddy - who actually did buy it - is what DRM is designed for. And yes it does work.

well said.

 

[copasetic]

Well of course that's not in their TOS or EULA because that's not what they are doing.

Right, so what's the problem when I say the license agreement is tied to a user, not a PC?

But getting average Joe to buy a game rather than just copy it from his buddy - who actually did buy it - is what DRM is designed for. And yes it does work.

Then not only are they targetting the wrong market with this DRM, they're doing it 20 years too late. That's a much bigger problem on consoles, where playing a pirated version of a game isn't just a simple matter of downloading it. PC games come with natural DRM in the form of online content, which is linked to a user rather than a computer or an install. So even if you lend the game to a friend he won't be able to play online without taking your account, which prevents you from playing online. As Spore shows even single player games can benefit from an online component. And best of all this DRM works without frustrating and annoying your customers.

And it might be worth noting that Spore's DRM has earned it the privelege of being the most pirated game ever. It's working, is it?

and my arg for that is: if you don't like it (either drm OR the elua) then don't buy it OR PIRATE IT!

I didn't buy it, or pirate it. Which is a shame, I was looking forward to it. Though my disappointment was made a little easier by the fact that it's been dumbed down so much.

 

[sojrner]

I didn't buy it, or pirate it. Which is a shame, I was looking forward to it. Though my disappointment was made a little easier by the fact that it's been dumbed down so much.

good deal, but I was not necessarily saying you were. Simply pointing out the solution to your statements of the overall difficulties introduced by DRM. Sounds like you solved it yourself. 😉

 

[purplerat]

That's a much bigger problem on consoles, where playing a pirated version of a game isn't just a simple matter of downloading it. PC games come with natural DRM in the form of online content,

People who pirate console games are the same ones using torrents and what not. Yes consoles are easier to pirate once you install a mod chip, but do you seriously believe the average console gamer even knows what a mod chip is nevermind being able to install it.
Secondly not all games are online games. Yes online games (sometimes but not always - see COD4) have a level of built in protection. But what about a game like oh say Spore which can be played entirely without accessing online content?
As far as how much Spore is pirated it's only relevant in comparison to how well it sells. It's a popular and much anticipated game so of course it will be pirated more then normal. And I can tell you from my experience with the game and it's DRM (as I posted in another thread) Spore actually lends itself very well to piracy because of it's DRM. Unlike most games which have multiple points of authentication and verification Spore simply, by design, only has 1 - the first time online activation. It's pretty clear that this is designed to simply prevent the casual pirate from sharing with their friends and not anybody who is truly looking to steal the game.

 

[dtq]

Yes consoles are easier to pirate once you install a mod chip, but do you seriously believe the average console gamer even knows what a mod chip is nevermind being able to install it.

Quick count up of non computer literate people I know with pirated console software, Miss a), she can barely switch a computer on, been in and out of institutions, but shes got sd cards full of pirated games for her DS. Mrs B - hairdresser, shes got a wii with next to no legal software. Mod courtesy of ebay. Mis C, 9 years old Nintendo DS with NO legal software. Mr D - builder, Grandpa, DS with SD card full of downloaded games.

I actually think piracy is pretty darned common on consoles these days, the same people who know how to use bit torrent to get their "free" music can also figure out ebay... It doesnt take a genius. I do believe mod chipping or other forms of piracy enabling hardware (eg nintendo ds "EDGE") for consoles is something which is well known even to "non experts"

 

[purplerat]

dtq,

At the same time of the all the people I know who own consoles (totaling dozens of consoles) I only know 1 person, who happens to be extremely tech savvy, who owns 1 modded console (a Wii). So I guess the laws of averages balances out the people you know with the people I know. If I had to guess I would estimate that a total of less than 1% of consoles are modded or contain otherwise pirated software. For PCs it's 100% that if a computer is capable running a game it is capable of running a pirated copy.

 

[Barzenak]

I choose to simply not buy a product if it has a drm sceme I do not agree with. I will not purchase anything with Starforce or secure rom 7 on it. Simple as that.. I will not pirate it I simply do not need it or the company that goes to this measure.

It is not about piracy anyhow it is about reselling it on ebay or used that they are fighting. We should have the right to buy a used game just as we do clothes etc.

 

[sojrner]

@barzenak: Agree w/ your first part... not sure if the reseller is what they are combating though. My logic is this: Consoles do sales volume much greater than anything on a PC and yet stores like ebgames and do great business selling used copies. Consoles are actually easier to sell a used copy on b/c there is no "install" on it. You can take that same disk and run it on anyone's machine.

so in my thinking if they wanted to stop used sales, they would hit that first and not the relatively tiny volume of resells on a PC. I think "piracy" is their focus w/ it all...

...but I have been wrong before.

 

[purplerat]

Good point on the console used games market. Considering how much is made off used console games by stores like EB (more per copy than new games) why then do they not sell used PC games (anymore atleast)? The answer is piracy. So even if you think DRM is meant to stop used game sales a large part of that reason is still piracy.
But I really do not think used game sales are really their concern. Since most games today are multi-platform it would be a complete waste for any company to go after used PC game sales but allow used console sales. Take COD4 for example. I have no real numbers but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if pre-owned sales on the consoles were actually greater than new sales for the PC.

 

[sojrner]

agreed.

 

[llama_man]

Disc-check DRM is a conspiracy by Sony to wear out optical drives faster, thus boosting sales of their hardware. [/delusional]

 

[copasetic]

People who pirate console games are the same ones using torrents and what not. Yes consoles are easier to pirate once you install a mod chip, but do you seriously believe the average console gamer even knows what a mod chip is nevermind being able to install it.

I wasn't really talking about pirating with a modchip, but rather lending games to friends. I'd wager that lending games happens a lot more on consoles than it does on PC.

Secondly not all games are online games. Yes online games (sometimes but not always - see COD4) have a level of built in protection. But what about a game like oh say Spore which can be played entirely without accessing online content?

It doesn't have to be an online only game. Spore gives access to tons of online content, without that content the game isn't nearly as interesting. Online content can be all sorts of things like mods, patches, mini-expansions, player rankings, multiplayer, player made content etc. Sure someone can play a pirated version without the online stuff, but do you really think such a person would have bought the game otherwise? Remember, not every pirated copy means a lost sale.

And I can tell you from my experience with the game and it's DRM (as I posted in another thread) Spore actually lends itself very well to piracy because of it's DRM. Unlike most games which have multiple points of authentication and verification Spore simply, by design, only has 1 - the first time online activation.

This is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn't matter how many points of authentication it has, the entire DRM package need only be cracked once to circumvent all of them. It wouldn't make any difference to a cracker if Spore phoned home every 10 minutes or required only 1 online activation, because both actions are done through the SecuROM program. Get rid of that and you get rid of the whole package.

 

[purplerat]

I wasn't really talking about pirating with a modchip, but rather lending games to friends. I'd wager that lending games happens a lot more on consoles than it does on PC.

That's not piracy and is perfectly fine. I don't think you would find anybody here saying lending a console game is wrong. And actually that proves exactly what I'm saying. You're correct that people share console games all the time. But no matter how much a single game is passed around it can only be run on 1 machine at a time. If anybody wants to use the game beyond that - say you borrow a game from a friend but then he wants it back and you still want to play it - would require an additional copy to be purchased.
However with PC games (consoles may be going this way soon to) if you strip out all DRM there is no need for more than 1 copy to be purchased amongst friends. With each pass from one person to another each new person get's a permanent copy while the previous person keeps theirs. Now getting back to the whole morality thing; for most people they see no difference between the perfectly acceptable sharing you described and the damaging type I just described. Hence why DRM actually works amongst regular people who are not actively looking to pirate a game but might out of just pure ignorance.

 

[razor512]

if console games required activations like pc games then tell me, what would happen when the company went out of business and took their servers with them

it is like everyone having a car made by toyota and when toyota goes out of business, everyone with the car wont be able to start the engine anymore


consoles have DRM but it is invisible to the legit customer,
they just pop the game in and play, try doing that with a pc game (unless you go with the full crack ones that don't require an install just double click to play after downloading )


DRM protects your games from little 4 and 5 year old kids from copying the game and passing it out to their friends but anyone with the slightest understanding of the technology will be able to pirate it no matter what so why not just use a really basic drm that just needs a cd key during install, get rid of the requiring cd to be in the drive and just stick with a cd key that doesn't need activation

the game will last forever as theres no drm servers to be chained to so when they jump off of a bridge their drm servers wont drag you with them

and it will stop the average user from pirating the game

other than that, making the DRM more annoying will only cause people to move to piracy to escape the drm

especially when the drm doesn't work

it is like putting 20 locks on your car door, having 20 locks is no more effective than 1 lock as the thief will just smash the window then hotwire the car
it would just be a added hassle to the legit car owner

 

[purplerat]

is console games required activations like pc games then tell me, what would happen when the company went out of business and took their servers with them

While that really has nothing to do with what we are discussing it did get me think about what it will be like when consoles go to that type of format. Games being tied to physical mediums is going out the door. I predict that very shortly, if not in the next cycle of consoles then certainly the ones after them, something like a Steam model will be used on consoles. All of your games will be tied to a central server which you can purchase and download from. You will probably be able to access your games from other console units but you won't be able to lend, trade or resell games but there will be other advantages like Steam. If you look at some of the content on the current consoles you can already see things drifting that why.

 

[copasetic]

That's not piracy and is perfectly fine. I don't think you would find anybody here saying lending a console game is wrong. And actually that proves exactly what I'm saying. You're correct that people share console games all the time. But no matter how much a single game is passed around it can only be run on 1 machine at a time. If anybody wants to use the game beyond that - say you borrow a game from a friend but then he wants it back and you still want to play it - would require an additional copy to be purchased.

Wait, what?? So it's ok to lend copies of games to friends, but not to make a copy for them? If I lend Halo 2 to a friend of mine for a week, until he's played it through, isn't that a lost sale? Shouldn't he have bought it if he wanted to play it?

You're right in that the difference between the two scenarios here is that one way (copying the game) allows us both to play it, the other way allows only one to play it at a time. But the end result is the same, two people using a single game, one without buying it. How is that not damaging?

 

[purplerat]

Wait, what?? So it's ok to lend copies of games to friends, but not to make a copy for them? If I lend Halo 2 to a friend of mine for a week, until he's played it through, isn't that a lost sale? Shouldn't he have bought it if he wanted to play it?

HOLY SH*T!!! You REALLY do not see the difference!!! I'm honestly shocked that somebody could not see the difference between sharing a single physical item at different times and duplicating protected material and then sharing multiple copies.
I'm tempted to try and splain it to ya but I honestly do not even know where to start.

 

[copasetic]

Wait, what?? So it's ok to lend copies of games to friends, but not to make a copy for them? If I lend Halo 2 to a friend of mine for a week, until he's played it through, isn't that a lost sale? Shouldn't he have bought it if he wanted to play it?

HOLY SH*T!!! You REALLY do not see the difference!!! I'm honestly shocked that somebody could not see the difference between sharing a single physical item at different times and duplicating protected material and then sharing multiple copies.
I'm tempted to try and splain it to ya but I honestly do not even know where to start.

That just depends on how you look at it. The way I see it, if I lend a game to a friend he's not going to buy that game. The end result is the same, a lost sale. Whether we can both play at the same time, in our respective homes, is pretty irrelevent.

 

[purplerat]

I don't know if this will help at all but it's something I posted in another thread based on how when you buy something and then resell it (or in give it away) you lose the value associated with owning it.

Without piracy -

Person1 buys a game for $50. Person1 gets 100% value for 100% paid- 1:1

Person1 sells used game to Person2 for $35, but loses value of still owning the game presumably losing a percentage equal to the price he sold it for. Person2 only get's partial value because the game is used (had to wait for used copy, used CD, missing box/booklet etc.), again presumably equal to the amount he saved by not buying new. So now Person1 has a net value of 30% and only paid a net of $15(30% of the games cost). Person2 has net greater net value with 70% but also paid $35 or 70% of the games cost. The total 100% paid for 100% value - 1:1

With every additional resale of the game this ratio would theoretically stay the same.



But now add piracy into the mix and assume that each person makes a copy before selling-

Person1 sells used game to Person2 for $35, but still retains almost full value by still owning the game, roughly 100%. Person2 gets presumably the same value as before because what difference does it make to him that Person1 can still play it. So now Person1 has a net value of 100% and but only paid a net of $15(30% of the games cost). Person2 still get's his net value of 70% and still paid $35/70% of the games cost. The total 100% paid but 170% value - 1:1.7

Each subsequent copy and resale will result in a growing gap between the amount paid and the actual value gotten out of the game.

The idea is not whether you are costing a company sales but rather that piracy (copying and then redistributing) actually devalues their product.

 

[Farrwalker]

That's not piracy and is perfectly fine. I don't think you would find anybody here saying lending a console game is wrong. And actually that proves exactly what I'm saying. You're correct that people share console games all the time. But no matter how much a single game is passed around it can only be run on 1 machine at a time. If anybody wants to use the game beyond that - say you borrow a game from a friend but then he wants it back and you still want to play it - would require an additional copy to be purchased.

Wait, what?? So it's ok to lend copies of games to friends, but not to make a copy for them? If I lend Halo 2 to a friend of mine for a week, until he's played it through, isn't that a lost sale? Shouldn't he have bought it if he wanted to play it?

You're right in that the difference between the two scenarios here is that one way (copying the game) allows us both to play it, the other way allows only one to play it at a time. But the end result is the same, two people using a single game, one without buying it. How is that not damaging?

The DRM is addressing that issue of "lending/sharing" by limiting installs. If you assume that your software may be used by only a finite number of users, you want to maximize the number that will pay you for that use, thereby maximizing revenues from your labor. Therefore, the trick is to find the magic formula to do so.

It seems to me that the use of the DRM which limits installs to only three is not a problem in itself, but the lack of disclosure of the fact before you buy the software is a critical issue. Lack of disclosure of a severely limiting term of the offer of the license agreement on the outside of the package which you hold in your hands as you decide to buy the software is central to the issue of whether there can be an agreement without informed consent.

I submit that the owner/"seller" of intellectual property has the right to offer his property for use to someone upon what ever terms he wants; but those terms must be disclosed before the purchase or the license user/"buyer' brings past assumptions into the assumed contract which in fact precludes a contract, for without agreement there can be "no meeting of the minds."

 

[lonewolf1044]

I might buy Spore even even with the 3 install limit because as mentioned by another poster, MS while it may not use securom it does require you to activate after three major upgrades and I have been using Windows for years and have yet to call in to activate. But I see a lot of people condoning pirating. This is why there is is CPS's. EA may budge a little but not a whole lot and CPS is not going away. If EA folds so does your entertainment. EA is not the only company utilizing Securom and Securom does suck. But talking about pirating is not the way and if EA catches up with you are you prepared to pay $250,000 for each offense and they can catch you if they really want to. So if you want to take that chance go right ahead. Look at the music industry they winning in almost every case that goes to court. If I decide not to buy Spore, I will not turn to pirating.

 

[copasetic]

I don't know if this will help at all but it's something I posted in another thread based on how when you buy something and then resell it (or in give it away) you lose the value associated with owning it.

The idea is not whether you are costing a company sales but rather that piracy (copying and then redistributing) actually devalues their product.

That's a pretty abstract idea, and I don't see how it impacts the company producing the game any differently than reselling it. Companies like EA care about one thing and one thing only, making enough money from a game to make a profit. They're not introducing DRM to control the devaluation of their games, it's to give them more control over the distribution of the game and thereby make more money. Killing the second hand games market is one way to do this, because it forces everyone to buy a new copy of the game, which will no doubt still cost $50 2 years from now, like all the popular games do.

Anyway, I think it's about time to agree to disagree and save the rest for another thread. TBH, this is getting boring.

 

[purplerat]

It's not an abstract idea although I must admit I did over complicate it. What it really is, is basic supply and demand economics. Supply and demand is what determines a products value. I won't go into any specifics because I would hope anybody reading this would have atleast the basic understanding. But when a product is resold (without piracy) it reflects negatively on the demand for that product. The original owner no longer wants to keep it and the new owner did not want it enough to buy it new. In this case you can legitimately argue that producing a better product would increase real demand and produce better sales. Thats why almost every market allows for a second hand marker.
But piracy changes all that because there's very little implication of decreased demand. Pirates do not ever have to give up their copy no matter how much they share it and nor do they have to deal with the normal downfalls of buying second hand, like having to wait for a used copy to be available. So what happens is that demand is high and is met without buying up supply. Essentially you get a breakdown in the way the market is supposed to work.
As has been said before, this is not about killing the second hand market. If it was it would be the most retarded and wasteful way to do it. The biggest chunk of used games are sold through retail vendors and are console games. PC game DRM affects neither. If they really wanted it stopped they would start by telling EB and the likes to stop doing so.

 

[number13]

Just another game I'm passing on, along with the Tarr Chronicles, yes I patched Bioshock, RIAA and the recording industry have figured out that DRM was bad for business, EA and the others will EVENTUALLY, does DOOM 3 have any DRM, I am buying my games on line from GOG.com, no DRM, Secure BS or StarDock, and I bought X2 when the DRM was removed

 

[number13]

Razor512, OMG, my hats off to you