Is it bad DRM?

[case]

i generally trust my friends so i don't need to protect my dvd ...and if they like using a dvd emulator to look at the dvd instead of puting it in the drive i don't care

actually company don't trust theyre customers...it's a bad fact...

how can you having good relationship with people that you don't trust ? can you expect them to trust you in return ?

you own Melodyne you bought it , if it was not copy protected will you give it to someone for free? do you think that it'll make a real difference if melodyne was not copy protected ? i guess not, i'm sure you can find pirated version somewhere that don't require any registration or provide a keygen bundled with it that anyone can download... again the only ones that have to deal with activations limits are the people who support the company and paid for it , you in this case . the ones that don't buy it haven't to request for reactivate the product by calling a hotline.

in a normal sheme loyal customers may not be annoyed with copy protections, pirates may have to.

actualy it's just the oposite way.




@tipperton, you can think what you wan't about me i don't care, i own the software i use...even if i in fact actually just Own the right to use it

i own spore and i don't play it anymore, because i'm against the copy protection sheme used and be sure that i don't use any crack to play it !

you just say that DRM are good because it enforce IP rights etc ... etc... that's falacious arguments are they don't in fact protect nothing, cracked versions are out faster than you say the word crack ...

These people IMHO are hypocrites. If they were really serious about not buying or using software with DRM in it, why are they using Windows, or Office, or ....???

it's you're point of view but i never called you an idiot or something like an hypocrite. my arguments are valid at least as yours to defend drm, the fact is that even you don't allow them to do what they wan't with the software as you blocked'em with you're firewall ...

so who is an hypocryte ? me that don't use a game i own because of the DRM abuse it contain or someone that say drm are good and let the OWNER of the software decide how it work and blocking it with a firewall...

that said i'm not for piracy or IP stealing i legally own all the software i have , i'm just against the way DRM are used actualy and the way they made a game worst than the cracked version...

[SFSxOI]

Face it Irene, people like case and SFSxOI don't like DRM for only one reason, it's hinders their ability to do what THEY want with a game or other piece of software regardless of what the OWNER allows or doesn't allow.

For my part, I'm completely ignoring both of them since neither one has even the slightest interest in an honest discussion of DRM, its strength and weaknesses, pros and cons, alternatives, etc., they just want it gone and nothing less than that is acceptable to them.

DRM needs to go away, plain and simple. Your assumption is wrong. I never said anything about doing anything with software that was contrary to what the owner allows or doesn't allow. In fact I specifically said that i'm all for anti-piracy measures that are for anti-piracy. I'm not for being lied to that DRM is about piracy when in reality its so big content can make more money and the legitimate consumer is footing the bill for it in the form of higher prices, and after a while in the very near future continue paying for it every time its used even after its been paid for. I am not for allowing big content any form of control over my computer or for being able to charge me rent to use a product I already paid for. You want real discussion yet accuse by implication others of piracy and being theifs when something contrary to your views are posted. I don't understand, you want discussion or you just want everyone to go along with what you say? If its the latter then why don't you start a thread thats titled "If you believe as I do then post here about DRM" ?

If your going to ignore me then don't keep using my name in vain.

[Tipperton]

Well, at least in EA's case DRM is here to stay, in just one day I saw no less than four people admit on their forums that they stole this game or that game by downloading it from the torrents, and one person admit that he was seeding three of their games as his way of protesting the presence of DRM and the way EA uses it.

As long as EA and any other company can see this going on, they are not going to stop using DRM.

i generally trust my friends

Trusting your friends is one thing, how willing are you to trust everybody? Would you leave the DVD totally unprotected if you were selling it to the general public or would you be inclined to want to protect it against other people sharing it against your wishes?

DRM needs to go away, plain and simple.

This is the only opinion of DRM you've bothered to share and it makes it pretty obvious that you aren't interested in any real discussion of DRM and possible alternative approaches that could achieve the same goals.

@All of you.

If you spent millions developing a game, would you be willing to release it with no DRM of any kind and trust your profits and livelihood to people simply not copying it and giving it to friends or posting it on the internet or whatever. Or would you be more likely to try and protect your right to be paid for your work and your product by those that want to use it?

Make a real honest effort to put yourself in the shoes of companies like EA, 2K Games, Crytek, and others, then see if your opinion about DRM doesn't change even a little.

[pdwyer]

As long as EA and any other company can see this going on, they are not going to stop using DRM.

Why though? It's not helping as they are still getting cracked then torrented.

What they need is less DRM and better copy protection. BluRay hasn't been cracked in a sense that you can just rip whatever you like (as far as I've heard) now I disagree with the region coding DRM for DVD and bluray but if they got rid of that I'd have no problem with the copy protection. (but then region coding DRM isn't about copy protection, it's about market segmentation for pricing )

So what is it that these morons at EA don't get?

- EA Has DRM that annoys their honest customers
- EA DRM'd games are downloadable in a cracked version from torrents that are so easy that an idiot can get them

Duh! :roll:

Maybe they should just go back to the fundamental question "what problem are we trying to solve?" and come up with a solution or fix that is in some way meaningful to that issue.

[case]

if you were selling it to the general public or would you be inclined to want to protect it against other people sharing it against your wishes?

i'm not a greedy company that don't care about customers...if maybe i sell the dvd, be sure that i'll don't add any copy protection to it.anyway it'll not be against my will to anyone being abble to view it.

i have my own vision on what should be the market, i'll probly stick with it if i goes selling my creations.

1/ no copy protection, at first if i wan't people to use something i made i want to let everyone enjoy it. anyway copy protections are not cheap and are useless.

2/ low prices, selling a game $60 don't help fight the piracy i'll stick for a $30 maximum price i'll probly let the buyer choose the price giving him a hint of what i expect to have for it, more people buying the game, more people knowing it exist, the more people copying the game , the more customers i could have. something like, i sell this game $15 but you can pay more or less for it, just pay what you think it's worth.

3/ paying customers will have access to more content or exclusive bonus free updates technical support etc...

4/i'll advertise the software at startup, to know that people can buy a licence for a cost they choose instead of go piracy

it may look like utopia but i's sure that people will buy the game anyway. people that copy it may buy it later or buy a sequel or still use copy.. so what in fact they use my game and it's nice .

in fact big companys like EA can't stick to this sheme because they wan't to make the maximum profit in the short run. the reasoning is that's it's better to sell $60*100000 in one week instead of $30*300000 in one year.
they don't care about people likng them or not. they know the games will sales anyway.so they use copy-protections/drm and imho goes too far actualy...

in a normal sheme loyal customers may not be more annoyed with copy protections than pirates.
you can say what you wan't you must agree with this statement people that pay deserve better service than non paying ones.

so actually it's a nonsense to continue buying software with copy protections that in fact made the exact oposite , pirates enjoy more the games than the customer.

that's why i'm boycotting them .

[SFSxOI]

DRM needs to go away, plain and simple.

This is the only opinion of DRM you've bothered to share and it makes it pretty obvious that you aren't interested in any real discussion of DRM and possible alternative approaches that could achieve the same goals.

@All of you.

If you spent millions developing a game, would you be willing to release it with no DRM of any kind and trust your profits and livelihood to people simply not copying it and giving it to friends or posting it on the internet or whatever. Or would you be more likely to try and protect your right to be paid for your work and your product by those that want to use it?

Make a real honest effort to put yourself in the shoes of companies like EA, 2K Games, Crytek, and others, then see if your opinion about DRM doesn't change even a little.

Sigh....nope. I specifically said i'd welcome a scheme that defeated piracy (theft), but....DRM isn't it.

I'm all for developers protecting their IP, thats not a problem with me. But....DRM is not protecting anything and is used by big content to make money and control your legitimate use of a product you paid for and using legitimately to begin with and to do this they employ measures that are intrusive, usurping, controlling, and for the most part does things they hide from the user and don't reveal whats going on AS YOU ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO KNOW (at least in the U.S.) and thus they seize some measure of control over your computer. All this so they can maintain control so they can make money. DRM does not prevent, stop, slow, or mitigate any theft or piracy.

There is a big difference between protecting something from theft... and implementing measures that do not prevent theft and that remove a persons legal rights over control of their property (their computer) in some way and then want to make money off of doing so in addition to charging a higher price and then lying about it. So yes, DRM needs to go away.

And I know someones going to say "But when you installed it you agreed". Thats pure BS. In this context courts have already held that a EULA acceptance does not imply they can usurp control of your computer and can not install or use measures that are not known to you or installed or used in secret and for which you have the right to give or deny your permission for EACH AND EVERY TIME its used regardless of how the EULA is written. Thats where part of the problem lies with things like securom, the majority assume simply because they agreed to the EULA it means securom (and similar) can do what it pleases so they never bother to really fight what it does, if people did I gurantee you securom (and similar) would not be in business long after being buried in the numerous law suits. They write the EULA in such a manner as to intimidate and negate any complaints but never really advise you of your rights fully, its written to imply a contract where none exists and written in such a manner as to intimidate. A EULA is an agreement, its not a contract. There is a big difference between a contract and an agreement, but the EULA is written in such a manner as to imply a contract status where none exists. The majority of people simply don't do enough research to find out that a EULA really has no power to begin with and your not bound by it in terms of legal rights over your computer, but a EULA will imply that it does when it doesn't. There is a big difference between reading a EULA and understanding what a EULA actually says, the two are not the same thing.

DRM has a backlash to it though, even EA is starting to feel the crunch some from it loosing customers because of their DRM crap.

Lumping anti-theft or anti-piracy into the title DRM is like trying to get apples from an orange tree. Sure, they are both trees but they are not both the same thing. If were going to have protection of IP by anti-theft and anti-piracy measures then lets do it. If were going to have big content controlling our computers and what we do and then calling it anti-theft and anti-piracy is not going to work and is a lie. Don't try to sell the lie that DRM is anti-piracy and anti-theft protection when it isn't and then we get charged more for it and then it controls our computers for the benefit of big content making money. DRM is not anti-piracy or anti-theft for IP and it needs to go away. The illusion that DRM is for anti-theft or anti-piracy is a lie.

[Trond]

http://kotaku.com/5070957/backtalk-in-e ... your-games

EA is linking the support forums with the game accounts, which means that if they ban you could potentially get banned from using legally purchased games if you misbehave on the support forum.

[pdwyer]

Beginning of the end!

See if EA can pull out of the downward spiral, I couple of upper management jobs must be on the line over making this crap work. Personally I think they are playing with fire in a house of cards

[Tipperton]

Beginning of the end!

Could be...

EA Loses $310 Million, Sees "Weakness At Retail" In October, Electronic Arts Lays Off Six Hundred

Not exactly good news for EA.

EA is linking the support forums with the game accounts, which means that if they ban you could potentially get banned from using legally purchased games if you misbehave on the support forum.

They're already linking your forum ID to your EA ID, at least for new forum members they are.

In a way I'm not surprised, I have seen quite a few people post messages on the EA forums admitting that they pirated an EA game and several that have admitted that they were seeding EA games. If they are that stupid, they should loose the right to run every EA game they own. Other than that though the people on the EA forums are generally better behaved than the people on the Steam forums.

Steam should do something like that too, their forums are more like face punch or off topic (from what I've heard) than a gaming forum. There are just so many trolls there just looking to pick a fight or start a flame war.

[case]

EA Loses $310 Million, Sees "Weakness At Retail" In October, Electronic Arts Lays Off Six Hundred

Not exactly good news for EA.

maybe the direct drawback of the drastic drm policy they use...

[Tipperton]

maybe the direct drawback of the drastic drm policy they use...

I agree their DRM policies are ridiculously restrictive to the point of abusing what DRM is really for.

But you can't say that without comparing previous earnings results. They could have been loosing money already for other reasons, like really bad customer support, crappy games, etc.

Why don't you try coming up with something new or original to say, or do you like being a broken record saying the same thing over and over again "ad-infinitum-ad-nausium".

(Where's the $@*&%#@ "Ignore user" button!?)

[Trond]

Why don't you try coming up with something new or original to say, or do you like being a broken record saying the same thing over and over again "ad-infinitum-ad-nausium".

(Where's the $@*&%#@ "Ignore user" button!?)

Now where did I hear that before?

[DoubleDutch]

I bought Far Cry 2 (great game btw) and after the install ran the patch to make it a 'no-cd' executable (gets rid of the protection). The protection was pointless and wastes not just my time, but also the publishers money - they have to pay a fee to use the protection!

With ReportBuilder I used a protection system that locked to particular hardware serial numbers - but I've found that these are too easy to fake and aren't very convenient fo the user. The single biggest support call was the locking system.

With Elementary Reports (ReportBuilder V2) I am using an online rights management system (they have to be online to use it), or if they have a U3 memory stick that they can lock it to that and thus use it offline. No complaints so far (with more users)!

If I was to write a new game then I would make the actual game free, with some kind of online functionality and charge £12 per year to use it.
[I've actually been thinking of doing a (very budget) online 'Star Raiders' style game with bits pinched from elite - but less role playing - more action.]

[SFSxOI]

I agree their DRM policies are ridiculously restrictive to the point of abusing what DRM is really for.

(Where's the $@*&%#@ "Ignore user" button!?)

Now you think this abusive? They are using DRM exactly for what its intended to do, control legal and rightful access to content you purchased and use legitimately, and thats what it is for. If its not for control, or is not controlling, then why bother to tie forum access to product use to begin with? This is just a taste of whats to come for DRM. If you think this is abusive, wait until they start exploiting DRM fully, this is just a very small taste.

Actually what EA posted to stock holder statements is that EA posted a $397 million unrealized loss for the quarter and after balancing out the various other things they are not required to report as losses (even though they are actually losses) they reported a realized loss final figure of $310 million but the total loss was actually $397 million, and they let 6% of their employees go. 6% of employees in a large company like EA is a lot of people, now out of work in the worse economic downturn in history (world wide). These people will go on unemployment and further tax a burdened economy. EA also reported that the loss was not due to the economic down turn. If you look at their financial statements you will see that in the second quarter of 2008 they reported a loss of $195 million at the same time their DRM policy for Spore was established and the number of complaints to them about DRM in their products increased (not just for Spore), and the decline in sales and revenue has continued since. In addition they have reduced their forcasts for the rest of the year. Sure looks like DRM has an effect here to me and its going to be a chilly Christmas for EA.

EA said the reason for the lay offs was part of its "cost-reducing" plan and they expected to be able to use the $50 million saved from the lay offs for a restructure effort next year. Sounds a lot to me like a continuation of their policy of simply ignoring people, which is very noticible in their dealing with customers, to make a buck. You don't think they will also not exploit DRM to make a buck also by using it to charge you a monthly or hourly charge for using the software as they have already said they want to do? Just what do you think that restructuring and their newly upcoming website and game server systems are for anyway? So I guess then all the fans of DRM can cheer that they got their way, or will they when they realized they have been duped and lied to? Of course its not all doom on EA's part, when they do start that monthly or hourly charge think of all the people on consoles alone who will pay it because they are locked in with no control and help them make up the difference, and think of all the people that will pay for the numerous re-activations and all that stuff, all thanks to DRM and all those who believed it was just for IP protection and to fight piracy.

Still looking for that 'Ignore User' button huh.

[case]

maybe the direct drawback of the drastic drm policy they use...

I agree their DRM policies are ridiculously restrictive to the point of abusing what DRM is really for.

But you can't say that without comparing previous earnings results. They could have been loosing money already for other reasons, like really bad customer support, crappy games, etc.

it was not an affirmation... i said 'maybe'