Have a read: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html
Have a read: http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html
DRM hurts the honest gamers much more than it hinders piracy, such a bad idea. I find many games with little or no copyright protection get pirated the least.
World of Goo
</sarcasm>
Genrally a good artical but a few things bugging me.
He complains alot about misinformation and about unsubstatiated claims about SecuROM and starforce, but then goes on to post somthing thats exactly the same like this.
There’s no proof that Alcohol and Daemon Tools use rootkits to evade DRM, but the evidence is compelling. If they do their usage is clearly unethical and even potentially runs afoul of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In any case, there’s no reason for these products, or any product as I’ve stated previously, to employ rootkit techniques.
From what the artical says though it appears that starforce has a much better results in keeping games unpirated for longer yet companys are using SecuROM with it's install limit which everybody hates.
Surly starforce would make more sence?
Could be the costs needed to implement and use the technology that put them off and going for a cheaper one instead
That article is an interesting read, if a little long-winded and even misinformed (or misleading) in places. For instance, when it says early games didn't have copy protection. Well, beg to differ. I remember some of the techniques used back as far as the '70s, like custom boot sectors and track arcing on floppies for Apple II machines. I had, and even still have, games that used it .... and a machine they run on.
There are are some doubts over the legal situation he describes, especially in relation to EULAs in the UK. I had a long discussion about this a while ago with a friend that, by a wonderful coincidence, happens to be a lawyer specialising in copyright issues. His point was that it was, at that time at least, a grey area. EULAs purport to limit user rights. For business buyers, there are some precedents that support that stance. For consumers though, his view was different. Some basic contract principles give rise to problems. First, you have to be aware of, or in a position where you should be aware of, the nature of a contact before you can enter into it. By putting EULAs inside a sealed box, the consumer can't be aware of the nature of it before buying. And at the point you buy, the contract is made. And another basic principle says that one party cannot unilaterally change or impose contract conditions after the contract is made.
The upshot? My lawyer friend was of the opinion that while it had never been tested in court, EULAs were likely to be either unenforceable, or at the very least, of limited enforceability, if it came to a court case. It may well be that the degree to which a EULA could be enforced on a consumer could well rest on the reasonableness of it's terms, and on what consumers could reasonably expect it to say. He was also of the opinion that this was precisely why it had never (at that time) been tested in court. And remember I'm talking about consumers here. There are test cases involving business software contracts and EULAs and, by and large, they are enforceable. But consumers and businesses are treated differently.
But leaving all that aside, for me, the argument is simple.
1) If a game uses overly-intrusive DRM, and certainly if it uses activation servers, then I will not buy it. I understand companies have problems with piracy and I wish them the best in solving it. But not when it causes me, as a legit paying customer, to jump through hoops of their design, it's gone further than I'm prepared to accept. Irritating though they are, I will put up with disc checks to ensure I have a legit copy, but not with install limits or activation servers. I will not put myself in the position of being held hostage to a games companies servers, or goodwill, or access to CS hotlines, just because I've put a game on and off my home machine(s) a few times. It ain't gonna happen.
2) Next, I don't expect games companies to take much notice of me personally and I doubt there's enough people think like I do that the games companies will take any notice. If everybody took that stance, there'd be no more games with activation servers etc, but they simply don't, and I expect those that do take that line to be a small enough percentage that games companies will just write us off. Well, that's their right, I suppose.
3) Obnoxious DRM, install limits and activation servers are now sufficiently common that there's a good chance any game I buy on impulse will have it. I'm not prepared to spend loads of time researching games before I buy. I just want to have a rummage, find something that appeals, buy, go home, install and play. And if I can't buy on impulse without a high chance of running into this garbage, I just won't buy any PC games.
4) I don't see the situation changing (for the better) any time soon. Unless the situation chances radically (and I'm not holding my breath), I'm now an ex-PC Gamer, and it's rampant piracy that has brought me to that point.
Oh well, it was fun for the 30-odd years that it lasted.
But it's got a bright side. If I'm not going to play games on my PC, I can save a fortune on not having to buy ludicrously priced graphics boards to cope with it. So not only do I save all that money I'd have spent on games, I save another truck load on hardware upgrades. Maybe the pirates have done me a favour.![]()
I'm broadly similar in that if a game uses DRM it will put me off, but sometimes if they game is good I have no choice lol. I happily got fallout 3 despite the games for windows live thing.
Although having read through the article a few days ago, it achieved it's objective in making me think about the other side, but the article itself is biased in the sense all the research he has done has been to prove his point. (Example: I want to do research on blood being blue, type "blood is blue" into google, use those as your references).
He admits that securom in some cases (including mine with DoW) breaks some games as the DVD drive can't use it. But then he downplays the impact this has on the customer summarising the negative points as a mere 'annoyance'.
IMO it is better to leave an open verdict if you are not sure one way or the other - the article doesn't know for sure one way or the other but paints a picture as if it did. Still, nothing in particular objectionable, it's just not terribly rigorous (more like somebodys very long blog post).
As for where we stand legally, well I've been in comms with my MEP, who referred the issue of transparency of DRM to the European Commissioner for something, who has now replied saying he agrees that transparency is important, that there is currently a lack of it with regards to DRM and usage restrictions, and that he is going into consultation with his colleagues in order to see if a new set of guidelines for industry are required.
So, it's not just one of those things (imo) that irate gamers who can't crack the latest games want - it's significantly impacting on the industry. And who makes the money? The licencers of securom, tages, etc.
For what it's worth, I have no objection when it's inobtrusive, like Steam. You buy your licence, you can download and re-download the game as often as you like, play offline, whatever.
Dreaming
C2D E6300 @ 2.8 | | Abit IP35 Pro | | 4GB Corsair XMS2 800 | | BFG 8800GTS OC2 320MB | | 500GB Western Digital for OS + 1500GB Seagate for Storage | | Antec NeoHE 550 | | Lian Li PC A05B | | Samsung 226BW 22"
Interesting read especially the following quote:
Has anyone thought of that one?If the Steam servers go offline at any time, or the user's Internet connection has problems, they may not be able to login to the Steam client and hence may be locked out of their own games. Indeed if Valve suddenly goes bankrupt for example, it's theoretically possible that all Steam users would be permanently locked out of their games since Valve has no legal obligation to keep their servers running.
Woohoo now Assistant Manager!
Yeah steam are pretty good, have played games a few times when the internet hasn't worked for one reason or another.
I guess this really does mean that consoles are the way forward for gaming (my opinion, feel free to disagree!) You could say they are havens for DRM but they never pretend to be anything else like the PC seems to.
I'm an ex-pc gamer now, sad, but I feel my hand was forced with overpriced hardware capable of playing them & the DRM malarky.
True that games are more expensive on a console but for the 'turn-it-on-and-it-just-works' element they can't be beat, no servers going down, no big deal if companies go under, no 'hassle'
I take the view that hardcore gamers using the latest hardware are best served by PCs and what they can offer. Each console is merely dead-end technology bound to be obsolete within a few years but I can still play DOOM on my PC (I don't but I could if I wanted to).
But aren't some console games also "protected"?
True, for res/textures/fps etc then a (high-end) PC cannot be beaten assuming you have the cash to keep up with the progress.
True, but hardware-wise the same can be said for a PC, any PC part no matter how high-end will be obsolete at some point. In fact I'd argue the timescale for a PC to become useless to a hardcore gamer is significantly less than the life of a console. As for games then if your current gen console won't play it (i'm looking at you PS3) then the old ones would always be available. Not a perfect solution by any standard but I've not played an old game for aaaaaages, infact my last one was Duke Nukem on my 360! Look at compatability issues old PC games have with new OSs
Yes, all of them probably, but it doesn't matter, they just 'work' with the hardware you have.
No worrying about something installing itself secrectly on your PC, breaking your DVD drive, crashing due to outdated drivers/hardware configuration. The only people worried about protection on consoles are those who would pirate games so can be ignored.
I never thought I'd ever argue console>PC (i'm only looking at gaming here) but I just don't see the PC ever regaining it's hold![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)