On Mass Effect & Spore Copy Protection

There's a massive thread on the Mass Effect Community Forums about the SecuROM copy-protection scheme planned for Mass Effect, BioWare's upcoming RPG (thanks Wolfox). The game will not need the disk in the drive to play, but will require an internet connection for installation to validate the CD (DVD) key and will need to go online once every ten days in perpetuity for revalidation. BioWare attempts to address all the questions this raises, at one point replying that this will be the same system used in Spore when the evolutionary game is released: "Yes, EA is ready for us and getting ready for Spore, which will use the same system." This thread continues the discussion after the first one was locked for length. Here's the deal:
Mass Effect uses SecuROM and requires an online activation for the first time that you play it. Each copy of Mass Effect comes with a CD Key which is used for this activation and for registration here at the BioWare Community. Mass Effect does not require the DVD to be in the drive in order to play, it is only for installation.

After the first activation, SecuROM requires that it re-check with the server within ten days (in case the CD Key has become public/warez'd and gets banned). Just so that the 10 day thing doesn't become abrupt, SecuROM tries its first re-check with 5 days remaining in the 10 day window. If it can't contact the server before the 10 days are up, nothing bad happens and the game still runs. After 10 days a re-check is required before the game can run.
View : : :
306 Replies. 16 pages. Viewing page 10.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  ] Older
126.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 19:15
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 19:15
May 6, 2008, 19:15
 
@ Sanura

Oh, hey, I got arrogantly and summarily dismissed by Derek Smart. Isn't that an internet rite of passage, or something?

uhm, um, wot?!?! Where?

PLEASE don't tell me I need to give you English and comprehension lessons too. I don't get paid for this crap you know!
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Avatar 9141
125.
 
Re: No subject
May 6, 2008, 19:14
Re: No subject May 6, 2008, 19:14
May 6, 2008, 19:14
 

This is an insulting protection scheme, and I hope it is cracked within days of the game's release.


Sadly it probably will be cracked with in days so as usual it will be the people that pay for the game that get screwed.

Well back to Liberty City!

124.
 
Re: No subject
May 6, 2008, 19:10
Re: No subject May 6, 2008, 19:10
May 6, 2008, 19:10
 
This is an insulting protection scheme, and I hope it is cracked within days of the game's release. Maybe I'll consider buying these titles when this ridiculous copy protection is removed later in their shelf lives. Maybe.
Huh? I'm sorry, I was thinking about cake.
123.
 
@Sanura
May 6, 2008, 19:10
@Sanura May 6, 2008, 19:10
May 6, 2008, 19:10
 
If you look at the past, you'll find that Starforce made a point about how copy protection can be hard to tackle. Sure, when people found out how the trojan worked and what really caused their cd/dvd drive to fail, they got pissed and yadda yadda yadda...now Starforce is history.

Update: take the example of Mount&Blade, an Indie game that is should be doing fine, with a copy protection that is based on activation. The game has been cracked before, but the paying fan base of this title is growing with each new version.

But, if you're like me, you play the game (full/demo) and you like it, you just go ahead and buy it to support the developers. I can bare the copy protection scheme if it doesn't mess my PC up or spy on what I do.

@Derek, don't you have some patching to do?
This comment was edited on May 6, 19:14.
122.
 
Re: No subject
May 6, 2008, 19:08
Re: No subject May 6, 2008, 19:08
May 6, 2008, 19:08
 
Even if they did manage to somehow kill bittorrent and the rest of the p2p applications it would just go back to the newsgroups and ftp sites anyway.

That brings up an interesting point. The problem isn't that piracy exists, it's that it's received mainstream exposure. Were the scene to stay exclusive to usenet and FTPs like in the old days, publishers and developers wouldn't be able to make estimated losses by counting the numbers of seeders and leechers on a torrent. Of course, they'd just find some other excuse to defect to consoles.

Avatar 20715
121.
 
Re: No subject
May 6, 2008, 19:08
Re: No subject May 6, 2008, 19:08
May 6, 2008, 19:08
 
Simpler solution - stop running on windows and run directly on the hardware instead. Most people are on ATI/Nvidia GFX and there's not that many chipset manufacturers either.

Someone just needs to put together a package to scan what hardware is installed then tell the main program to use which selection of libraries.

Oh but wait - everyone would bitch about not being able to alt+tab and having to boot like a console!

Even so it whould work perfectly and totally stop PC piracy - I'm sure if Derek and Cliffski got together they could knock something up in a week or too.

(BTW Please don't take this idea seriously)

This comment was edited on May 6, 19:11.
120.
 
Re: No subject
May 6, 2008, 19:03
Re: No subject May 6, 2008, 19:03
May 6, 2008, 19:03
 
So what solutions are there?

Easy.

1) Make games that designed specifically for PC gamers.
2) Make games that work on the majority of computers out there.
3) Make games that don't require numerous patches to become stable.
4) Make games that don't require the player to authenticate their servers, connect to the net, call anyone, enter a CD-key, install anything other than the game, register, etc.

There you go. Increased profits guaranteed.

Avatar 20715
119.
 
Re: No subject
May 6, 2008, 19:03
Re: No subject May 6, 2008, 19:03
May 6, 2008, 19:03
 
So why doesn't EA just take the money they used to license SecuROM and take those stupid ass viral marketers who invade game forums and just make a dedicated anti-piracy department (the EA Gestapo) that does nothing but search the web, torrent sites for cracks, ISOs of their games, etc. and contact (threaten with a lawsuit) those hosting them to take them down?

That really wouldn't work - the RIAA has been trying to get albums off the net for years and ended up going after the people downloading it instead in the end.

Even if they did manage to somehow kill bittorrent and the rest of the p2p applications it would just go back to the newsgroups and ftp sites anyway.

118.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 19:00
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 19:00
May 6, 2008, 19:00
 
If I could only be as abrasive as dsmart in my original post in this thread then maybe I would be as quoted as he is...

There you go.

Avatar 20715
117.
 
No subject
May 6, 2008, 18:59
No subject May 6, 2008, 18:59
May 6, 2008, 18:59
 
So what solutions are there? Everyone generally hates EA so they are never going to get the indie fan love and support like a Stardock.

Ask for a license key each time before downloading a patch/update?

Another Steam-like program that authenticates each time you play (basically what they're doing here except for a short window)?

CD-checks don't bother me. They annoy me, sure but I'm ok with it. One-time online activation, gets to the comfort boundary but I'm ok with. Something invasive and sneaky like Starforce bothers me.

Steam bothered me at first but I didn't have a choice if I wanted to play Valve games, and there's this sort of blind trust and faith in Valve (like with what Google does with your private data) that they won't do anything invasive (i.e. won't do anything evil) that you have to take. It's a little unsettling but, like I said, you don't have a choice if you want to play HL or TF2.

So why doesn't EA just take the money they used to license SecuROM and take those stupid ass viral marketers who invade game forums and just make a dedicated anti-piracy department (the EA Gestapo) that does nothing but search the web, torrent sites for cracks, ISOs of their games, etc. and contact (threaten with a lawsuit) those hosting them to take them down?

They can keep the department focused on a game for six months (the time window where a game makes most of its money) then have its efforts rotated to the next game.

Would something like this work?

116.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:58
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:58
May 6, 2008, 18:58
 
If I could only be as abrasive as dsmart in my original post in this thread then maybe I would be as quoted as he is...

115.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:57
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:57
May 6, 2008, 18:57
 
Oh, hey, I got arrogantly and summarily dismissed by Derek Smart. Isn't that an internet rite of passage, or something?

Look, I'm not saying those games succeeded BECAUSE of a lack of copy protection. Hell, they may well have succeeded -despite- it. I would guess, ultimately, that copy protection would have made very little difference in the overall sales figures, because people who wanted to pirate it were going to anyway.

Seriously, do you think copy protection -actually- prevents piracy? It's absolutely awful that piracy is as widespread as it is (hell, I'm a modeler/animator, so I'm not too keen on seeing companies lose money). I just have yet to see any copy protection scheme that actually succeeds in preventing games from being pirated.

114.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:55
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:55
May 6, 2008, 18:55
 
My main reason for liking this is that I'm a subscriber of Metaboli (Europe's Gametap). Unfortunatly I can't play some games that are as recent as two years old because their copy protection is not compatible with vista.

Unless M$ manage to totally change the TCP/IP stack with the next release of windows there should be no reason a phone home system should fail.

113.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:53
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:53
May 6, 2008, 18:53
 
The guys earning maybe a million a year for deciding biz strategy for billion dollar companies...

Yeah, that's exactly the problem: they're making a million a year, they're coming up with these shitty schemes, and they want us to pay for it.

I'd bet you anything that if they'd fire those idiot suits and launched the game with no DRM, they'd make a lot more profit from the game.

112.
 
Re: no subject
May 6, 2008, 18:53
Re: no subject May 6, 2008, 18:53
May 6, 2008, 18:53
 
heh, wasn't it just *last* week I was saying in another thread that very soon every frigging PC game will be using a "phone home" form of copy protection.

This is hardly surprising. This, coupled with Byte Shield (now adopted by Paradox/Gamers Gate and a bunch of other companies) is the beginning of the new push at curbing the piracy of our games.

All you sissies crying foul, I feel your pain. However, even HD movies *and* console games *have* copy protection; but nobody whines about those, do they? You mofos are only complaining because - as pirates - its just going to make things a bit harder. Wankers.

There is nothing wrong with non-intrusive copy protection.

This isn't non-intrusive copy protection. The copy protection consoles and movies is completely transparent to the user. You stick a game in a console, it works, period. Anything that doesn't work is labeled a buggy POS and tends to die a horrible death. With movies the only thing you ever have to think about is regions and usually only if you are buying foreign films.

Gamers are complaining because the PC industry has failed so hard at copy protection it isn't funny. With a console I only have to think "is my disc in the console?" if I want to play a game. PC copy protection has been incredibly intrusive and anything but transparent. Bioshock's phone home scheme cause many people to be unable to play the game when they purchased it, because the authentication servers crashed. A scheme like this means the user has to think about the copy protection. Is their computer plugged into the internet, can it phone home through the firewall, if not how do they configure the firewall? For more tech savvy people this isn't much, but there is a huge swath of gamers who aren't tech savvy. PC copy protection has historically been a pain in the ass, refusing to run if you have a virtual drive, refusing to run if you have certain parts of the nero suite installed, refusing to run on certain CD drives, trying to covertly install things on people's computers that in the end causing trouble.

I don't really pirate games, but I can't think of a single pirate who has purchased a game because of a copy protection system. I can on the other hand think of numerous times where I decided not to purchase a game because their copy protection system caused more problems than the game was worth.

111.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:52
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:52
May 6, 2008, 18:52
 
Yeah they should listen to some kids on an internet forum, thats where the REAL biz sense is right?

Uh they might consider listening to their customers... That might be helpful in designing a business strategy... I think they teach that in business school...Know your client? Bah just me I guess.

110.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:52
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:52
May 6, 2008, 18:52
 
I'll buy this if they put it on Steam. Otherwise I don't want to deal with bullshit DRM.

Avatar 17499
109.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:51
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:51
May 6, 2008, 18:51
 
company of heroes being the game that added DRM recently right?

THQ made the brilliant decision of adding copy-protection with the expansion pack. However, the original game was a top 10 seller for months with no copy-protection. I think it's safe to say it made money.

Not sure about warhammer but STALKER, Crysis and Witcher shipped with copy protection.

Yes, they did, with Witcher's protection being the most zealous. Of course, a way to bypass it was discovered within a day so that's something of a moot point. Regardless, all of these PC-exclusive games with useless copy-protection still sold well and made money, which contradicts cliffski's original point.


This comment was edited on May 6, 18:54.
Avatar 20715
108.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:50
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:50
May 6, 2008, 18:50
 
@ Sanura

Yeah, it was just awful when Stardock went out of business because of their lack of copy protection, wasn't it?

And now comes the pre-requisite silly and baseless commentary about Stardock being profitable due to their lack of copy protection.

Since I can't be arsed to type up all that crap again, here, I'll just post my previous missive about it from this* thread. Enjoy!! k tnx bye.

There is nothing to explain. And to those of us in the business, the "success" is understandable. Its simple really.

Small team. Small dev costs. Low overhead.

With that, even if you sold 50% of your projections, when you only needed 25% to be profitable, you're still on top.

In fact, it is that same model that everyone in the industry uses. Why? Because we all take piracy (an acceptable risk) into account when making projections.

So, Stardock - a *small* company - selling 100K units of a *niche* game developed by a *small* developer with a *small* budget, can be perfectly happy with those numbers (piracy or not) when compared to the likes of a larger (or even smaller) company with a much larger investment.

This is pure economics. Stardock's 100K units "success" is another company's 100K units failure. e.g. UT3 and even Crysis (those million units take into account OEM, freebies etc since they were practically giving the damn thing away since they couldn't sell it. NPD figures don't even show Crysis going near 150K units in North America) were failures by those same calculations. Crysis and UT3 obviously cost a lot more to make than the Stardock *published* game that you're all using as a silly yard stick.

Also, the sales of SiNs is not a fluke. When have you seen Brad make any such claims about *any* other Stardock product? When in fact several (e.g. GalCiv) were also sold at retail and in a box and with no copy protection?

This whole crap about Stardock's success being due to there being no copy protection in the SinS game is pure adulerated **rubbish**. Fact is, Sins is a niche title and there are enough honest gamers in that category who would pay for such a game. 100K+ of them as a matter of fact. Copy protection or not. If we knew how many copies were actually pirated, then we'd be talking.

All indies face the same thing. In my case, none of my games have lost money. Does that mean that I couldn't have made *more* money?

Lets put things into perspective please.

*http://www.gamecritics.com/videogame-piracy-and-the-pc-gaming-industry#comment-31636


This comment was edited on May 6, 18:51.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Avatar 9141
107.
 
Re: Great Post I Found
May 6, 2008, 18:49
Re: Great Post I Found May 6, 2008, 18:49
May 6, 2008, 18:49
 
Not sure about warhammer but STALKER, Crysis and Witcher shipped with copy protection.

306 Replies. 16 pages. Viewing page 10.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  ] Older