On Spore Piracy

Spore's Piracy Problem on Forbes is one of those forays into trying to evaluate the extent of game piracy, in this case for Spore, by looking at peer-to-peer statistics. This is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over Spore's digital rights management, which is upsetting many gamers in order to theoretically curb piracy, but in spite of anti-piracy measures described by some as draconian, the game is apparently getting even more action on bit torrent than one might expect according to Big Champagne, a firm that analyzes such activity. The article indicates a popular sentiment among those pirating the game is that they are protesting the DRM in the game, and it also quotes Brad Wardell on how Stardock has managed to protect its intellectual property without pissing off its user-base. Thanks nin.
View : : :
95 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older
95.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 20, 2008, 18:49
95.
Re: No subject Sep 20, 2008, 18:49
Sep 20, 2008, 18:49
 
DRM does stop those cracked games from using online features(or can),

Online functionality has nothing to do with the DRM, most online content is simple cdkey hashes tied to accounts. It's not even related to the topic.

downloading new content or patching their games.

Again, no it doesn't. Pirates can patch their game with cracked versions of the patch and the extra content is the same story.

It also stops retail versions from being installed more then 3 times without a phone call or email to EA.

People who bought the game shouldn't be treated like potential criminals. EA should go after the pirates, not the paying customer. DRM does not go after the pirates, it just inconveniences the paying customer. It doesn't stop a pirate from doing anything.

I also fail to see why you think EAs attempt to secure their game is bad. The only reason I can see why people like you have a problem with this is that they need a reason to pirate the game. EA will allow you to increase the installs with a simple phone call or email.

I've explained it in detail twice now. It's not a worthwhile attempt to secure their games is the real problem. If they come up something that will target the pirates without nailing the legitimate customers then I doubt you will see many people caring about the mechanism.

To prevent another retarded reply like "wut u mean, PPL PIRATE SHIT MAN U WHINER", let me break it down for you here little chap: activation based DRM in theory prevents people from spreading the game on the Internet or with their friends. Guess what? Most of those copies you see on BitTorrent come from leaks from retailers, duplication plants and other sources. A release group gets a hold of these and cracks it. It's then spread around via FTP sites(aka topsites) and eventually to Usenet and BitTorrent. They don't come from Joe Bob down the street burning his copy for a friend. The activation DRM does zip, zero, nadda, nothing to stop this process. Plain old disc protection is FINE, christ we've all been conditioned to it over the years so long as it isn't overly intrusive(aka Starforce). The trouble is that they're tying the two methods together.

Once upon a time this DRM would've been great, about say 7 years ago when there was little to no protection for retail discs and anyone could make a direct copy. Nowadays anyone can just get a copy via BitTorrent, they don't even need a disk thanks to large hard drives and disk image tools. Burning a direct copy is actually HARDER to do for the average person than BitTorrent these days.

That's why this DRM sucks, it only affects people who actually spend their money on the game - the people you are supposedly defending.

I fail to see a problem with any of this PARTICULARLY WHEN EA has allready seen a MILLION copies downloaded for free.

A million pirated copies of what exactly? Could you be anymore vague?

This comment was edited on Sep 20, 23:09.
Avatar 51617
94.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 20, 2008, 18:12
94.
Re: No subject Sep 20, 2008, 18:12
Sep 20, 2008, 18:12
 
"If DRM did something to actually stop piracy then I think most normal consumers could respect that as they wouldn't have to put up with seeing it floating around on the Internet via BitTorrent for any moron to get with two clicks."

DRM does stop those cracked games from using online features(or can), downloading new content or patching their games. It also stops retail versions from being installed more then 3 times without a phone call or email to EA.

I fail to see a problem with any of this PARTICULARLY WHEN EA has allready seen a MILLION copies downloaded for free.

I also fail to see why you think EAs attempt to secure their game is bad. The only reason I can see why people like you have a problem with this is that they need a reason to pirate the game. EA will allow you to increase the installs with a simple phone call or email.

As far as you yourself not having done it. Its entirely possible(although I doubt it). However, I find it amusing that very few people admit downloading it and yet it appears a huge amount of people have....
DON'T LIKE MY COMMENTS?!? THEN STOP RELEASING GARBAGE.
Avatar 8515
93.
 
No subject
Sep 20, 2008, 16:58
93.
No subject Sep 20, 2008, 16:58
Sep 20, 2008, 16:58
 
Yes I bothered looking newb. I saw almost 1 million down loads of EAs game on BitTorrent. It isnt hard to understand that people like you use rare problems with DRM to justify their actions.

I'm the guy who usually defends DRM around here buddy. I get picked on by the regulars for it. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your ridiculously silly statement.

I guarantee your a theif and you downloaded it yourself.

Ok, good for you I guess? You can think whatever you want, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over it. Just pointing out that your statement is stupid and sounds like something I'd hear from a 12 year old in Halo.

You say that they're just angry they can't pirate it but they CAN pirate it, so back to square one for you. Obviously there are legitimate customers who are unhappy with DRM. If DRM did something to actually stop piracy then I think most normal consumers could respect that as they wouldn't have to put up with seeing it floating around on the Internet via BitTorrent for any moron to get with two clicks.

This comment was edited on Sep 20, 16:59.
Avatar 51617
92.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 20, 2008, 16:48
92.
Re: No subject Sep 20, 2008, 16:48
Sep 20, 2008, 16:48
 
Yes I bothered looking newb. I saw almost 1 million down loads of EAs game on BitTorrent. It isnt hard to understand that people like you use rare problems with DRM to justify their actions.

I guarantee your a theif and you downloaded it yourself.
DON'T LIKE MY COMMENTS?!? THEN STOP RELEASING GARBAGE.
Avatar 8515
91.
 
No subject
Sep 20, 2008, 11:38
91.
No subject Sep 20, 2008, 11:38
Sep 20, 2008, 11:38
 
Uh they can steal the game. The DRM does nothing to stop it. It's up on thousands of BitTorrent trackers right now, did you even bother looking? If they were pissed they couldn't steal the game, they'd be posting a lot worse stuff I suspect. The DRM doesn't protect the product, that's the real problem. If the DRM worked, it would be annoying but at least EA could say they were effectively protecting their investment. Instead the DRM does nothing and only affects legitimate customers. How is this so hard for you to understand?

Avatar 51617
90.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 20, 2008, 10:59
90.
Re: No subject Sep 20, 2008, 10:59
Sep 20, 2008, 10:59
 
wah wah wah wah the babies are crying

you guys are just pissed you cant steal the game

owning a PC doesnt give you the right to steal every game (like most posting here do). dont bother denying it becuase for everyone of you that posting here that buys games, 10 of you steal them. and the real reason your upset is becuase you have problems stealing this one and playing it online.
This comment was edited on Sep 20, 11:01.
DON'T LIKE MY COMMENTS?!? THEN STOP RELEASING GARBAGE.
Avatar 8515
89.
 
No subject
Sep 16, 2008, 14:28
89.
No subject Sep 16, 2008, 14:28
Sep 16, 2008, 14:28
 
EA just wants control of the market, they want to be able to do what Intuit does with Quickbooks. It's called sunsetting, its common in the PC application market. Force you to use a newer version at a higher cost. They can end online support for titles as they deem fit and force you to upgrade. There's a huge amount of money in it and they get to reduce their expenses by dropping support for older games and perhaps even going as far as disabling old products since activation and authentication will be tied to them.

It worked on the console market with every sports game they have, why not do it with all their products? (sarcasm of course)

All this talk about piracy is just a big smoke screen to allow them to make people accept this level of control as necessary for whatever reason.

It hasn't gone this far yet, which I think is why people are only concerned about the PC game resale market, but this is certainly where it will end up going.

I recall a lot of people being very pleased with Morrowind around the time Oblivion was released. People still played it, probably still do today, even though it was made how many years ago? How happy would Bethesda have been if they could simply flip a switch and no one could play morrowind anymore? Or MS for that matter, Vista is out, sorry can't use XP anymore, upgrade time!

This is about forcing you, the paying customer to pay them more money. It affects the resale market currently but it will eventually effect your games that you purchased in the future and stop them from working when they decide you should be upgrading or moving on to their newer product.

Stop arguing about piracy, it's not related. They want you to believe that this level of control is good for you.

And I hope you see that it's not...in any way shape or form.

Either the product works out of the box or it's not something you have control over. Online features and whatnot are a different story, but buying software that doesn't work out of the box does not solve any piracy issues.

88.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 16, 2008, 01:37
88.
Re: No subject Sep 16, 2008, 01:37
Sep 16, 2008, 01:37
 
Physical property market vs intellectual property market. I get the point you're trying to make but the comparison isn't really valid. A better one would be the store bought DivX discs that used to expire after a viewing or set period of time had passed.
At least they had the decency to price those more like rentals than actual DVDs.

This comment was edited on Sep 16, 01:37.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
87.
 
amen to that
Sep 15, 2008, 21:50
87.
amen to that Sep 15, 2008, 21:50
Sep 15, 2008, 21:50
 
same view here, stable nocd and i may buy if the forums are not full with bugs

86.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 21:17
86.
Re: No subject Sep 15, 2008, 21:17
Sep 15, 2008, 21:17
 
Actually, pirating does NOT necessarily give you an exact copy. For example, the horrific DRM is removed, and with it the agony and misery associated with such restrictions are also removed.

That, in itself, is priceless!

In fact, I never purchase a game at retail until a NOCD patch has been released and thoroughly vetted.

85.
 
No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 20:02
85.
No subject Sep 15, 2008, 20:02
Sep 15, 2008, 20:02
 
I sincerely doubt EA cares about the pitifully small PC games resale market. It's not so much about money lost there as it is about product control in general I suspect. All of the conspiracy theories about the murder of the second hand PC market ignore the fact that it's a tiny amount of revenue lost.

EA just wants control of the market, they want to be able to do what Intuit does with Quickbooks. It's called sunsetting, its common in the PC application market. Force you to use a newer version at a higher cost. They can end online support for titles as they deem fit and force you to upgrade. There's a huge amount of money in it and they get to reduce their expenses by dropping support for older games and perhaps even going as far as disabling old products since activation and authentication will be tied to them.

Frankly I'm amused more people haven't thought of it and instead think that big bad EA is out to get the small bucks of PC game resale. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Avatar 51617
84.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 19:37
84.
Re: No subject Sep 15, 2008, 19:37
Sep 15, 2008, 19:37
 
Pirating a Game gives you an "exact" copy of the original work, closer to sticking that hand-bag in a Star Trek replicator and getting an exact copy down to the stitch.

Yes, and EA is making is disintegrate assuming
1) That they can kill the used handbag market.
2) That the clones will disintegrate as well.
They are wrong about 2)
Which we could find a way to fix 1)


83.
 
No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 16:51
83.
No subject Sep 15, 2008, 16:51
Sep 15, 2008, 16:51
 
A friend showed me a website last week that was selling thousands of different high end knock-off products, everything from watches, shoes, shirt, pants, bags, housewares etc, etc, etc...the list just goes on.

Are these companies going to start making clothes and housewares that can only be worn 5 times before they disintegrate or shut down? All in the name of protecting their wares from piracy, but completely inconveniencing their real customers in the process? When in reality the efforts they make have absolutely no impact on the piraters at all, but only legit customers.

Physical property market vs intellectual property market. I get the point you're trying to make but the comparison isn't really valid. A better one would be the store bought DivX discs that used to expire after a viewing or set period of time had passed.

This comment was edited on Sep 15, 16:51.
Avatar 51617
82.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 16:50
82.
Re: No subject Sep 15, 2008, 16:50
Sep 15, 2008, 16:50
 
My question is, does other companies spend this much money on protecting their products as game, music and movie companies do on theirs?

A friend showed me a website last week that was selling thousands of different high end knock-off products, everything from watches, shoes, shirt, pants, bags, housewares etc, etc, etc...the list just goes on.

Are these companies going to start making clothes and housewares that can only be worn 5 times before they disintegrate or shut down? All in the name of protecting their wares from piracy, but completely inconveniencing their real customers in the process? When in reality the efforts they make have absolutely no impact on the piraters at all, but only legit customers

While this makes sense as an analogy in a consumer's mind, it is not the same thing from a developer's mind. What a developer sees this analogy relating to is closer to someone writing a Tetris clone, or something. The Original Clothes manufacturer can claim higher craftsmanship etc over the knockoffs. Pirating a Game gives you an "exact" copy of the original work, closer to sticking that hand-bag in a Star Trek replicator and getting an exact copy down to the stitch.

Game developers would likely claim an analogy that DRM is closer akin to the EAS tags on clothing in department stores that prevent customers from walking out the door with it. It keeps honest people honest by discouraging them from walking off with the products, but EAS tags pose little discouragement to someone determined to steal the object.
/*New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, ``Why then are you not taking part in them?'' -H.G. Wells*/
Avatar 12716
81.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 16:18
81.
Re: No subject Sep 15, 2008, 16:18
Sep 15, 2008, 16:18
 
My question is, does other companies spend this much money on protecting their products as game, music and movie companies do on theirs?

A friend showed me a website last week that was selling thousands of different high end knock-off products, everything from watches, shoes, shirt, pants, bags, housewares etc, etc, etc...the list just goes on.

Are these companies going to start making clothes and housewares that can only be worn 5 times before they disintegrate or shut down? All in the name of protecting their wares from piracy, but completely inconveniencing their real customers in the process? When in reality the efforts they make have absolutely no impact on the piraters at all, but only legit customers.

----------------------------------------------------
Trackmania United Forever, Bionic Commando Rearmed, GRID

PSN= Puscifer73 • Trackmania= puscifer604
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/
This comment was edited on Sep 15, 16:20.
80.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 16:01
80.
Re: No subject Sep 15, 2008, 16:01
Sep 15, 2008, 16:01
 
The lawyers are telling them to protect their IP or they will lose it.
That only applies to trademarks, not copyrights or patents.

The numbers on Bit Torrent and other P2P sharing show staggering numbers for pirated copies.
And from what I've seen, the numbers thrown out are staggeringly unsupported by any facts or methodology that would allow some kind of validation.

Other than that, I think I pretty much agree with the rest of it.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
79.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 14:30
79.
Re: No subject Sep 15, 2008, 14:30
Sep 15, 2008, 14:30
 
I know this thread is on its last leg, but it finally started to get to the point.

There is no solution.

Developers are being bombarded from every side that Pirating will prevent their program from making them money. The lawyers are telling them to protect their IP or they will lose it. DRM slingers telling them that their DRM will make them X # of dollars by curbing piracy for the critical first few days. The numbers on Bit Torrent and other P2P sharing show staggering numbers for pirated copies. Add all this together and only a complete idiot wouldn't allow a distributer to put DRM into their product.

Distributers don't care about the product. That is not their job, their job is strictly to squeeze every last drop of income out of a product for both the developer and themselves. It costs money to distribute. Stardock has released multiple quotes of how much it costs to get retail shelf space, let alone cost of developing/printing/shipping hard copy boxes and books. The Distributer's job is to market the product and build the sales.

DRM Companies obviously only care about keeping themselves in business and puffing up piracy numbers or making piracy look worse than it is, is only in their best interest.

Consumers are screwed anyway they look at it. They buy a DRM infested app, the DDD (DRM company, Distributer and Developer) all feel justified the DRM worked. They Buy it and pirate it (Probably the morale approach) twice the affect, the DDD all feel justified, and the pirated numbers go up showing piracy is out of control. They Pirate it only, the DDD see huge piracy numbers and are even stregthened in their stance that Piracy is out of control. They do the most noblest thing and don't purchase or pirate the game, and the DDD still see that Piracy is out of control because the game was pirated by so many others. There is NO way for a consumer to get their message across to the DDD in any way that they detest DRM.

No DRM is un-crackable and only presents mild amusement to the hackers that strip it out. Thus all PC applications will be pirated, and I will go so far as to say all digital IP of any sort will be pirated in some fashion. If that is the case then all shortfalls of expected sales can be blamed on Piracy, thus every application developer out there is being told they could have made more money. Thus proliferating the lies of the DRM and Distributers that DRM is neccissary. So in essence every one of us including the developers and distributers are contributing equally to "the death of PC Gaming"

In the end take consolation in the fact that no matter what any developer says or anyone else in the industry bitches about, PC gaming will never die, unless the PC platform dies as well. If EA goes bankrupt from rampant piracy, someone will step-up in their place and design games for the PC. If Piracy gets so bad, although it has been "So Bad" since the PC was invented, we may see a dip in the number of multi-million dollar games being developed for the platform, but that is far from the death of PC Gaming.

PC Gaming was huge and fun in the mid 90s, and how many Million $ games were released before 2000?
/*New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, ``Why then are you not taking part in them?'' -H.G. Wells*/
Avatar 12716
78.
 
Re: What really kills me....
Sep 15, 2008, 13:59
78.
Re: What really kills me.... Sep 15, 2008, 13:59
Sep 15, 2008, 13:59
 
So I pir8ed the game.
My girlfriend tried it, and liked it, I was disappointed.
She bought it, I didn't, and she hasn't even bothered installing the official version, citing that the DRM was allegedly making problems for people.

Go finger.
Avatar 13202
77.
 
No subject
Sep 15, 2008, 13:50
77.
No subject Sep 15, 2008, 13:50
Sep 15, 2008, 13:50
 
Ironically this actually forces many legitimate users to resort to pirate methods to get the game to work. Since they'll need to download a crack to play their own game as soon as they run through the three installs. . . And once they've learned methods for finding and installing pirated games, some of them won't come back.
- Entr0py24 (Post 9)

Excellent point, completely agree.


If they don’t want to lose revenue through second hand game sales then just make the game license non-transferable, or allow for it to be transferred for a nominal fee.
- DangerDog (Post 38)

Both options (non-transfer, transfer-fee) are illegal.

Youre doing away with DRM for youself, but encouraging it in the long term.
- wallace321 (Post 74)

You want the product, but don't like the DRM solution. Buying & stripping the drm is what I tend to do (I never pirate), but I'm also contributing to the problem. So: Excellent point, completely agree.

76.
 
Re: What really kills me....
Sep 15, 2008, 13:42
76.
Re: What really kills me.... Sep 15, 2008, 13:42
Sep 15, 2008, 13:42
 
Wallace pretty much nailed it on the head. No matter what you do, publishers/developers will always take the path of most convenience. If a game sells poorly, they'll never admit that they just made a bad or buggy game. They'll just blame something else. With the majority of big PC games being ports anyway, they'll just avoid making PC ports of future games instead of realizing that games actually designed for the PC are the way to go.

Avatar 20715
95 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older