Headlines - Spore and Mass Effect require online re-check every 10 days

[Whiternoise]

Personally i couldn't give a rats backside about leaving the disc in, that's a lot better than having to be online all the time just to play it (on a laptop for instance). Ah yes, but that's what they would say - what if it doesn't happen?

Although, from a second reading it does sound a lot more like they're asking people to register once, play for ten days, then recheck to be sure. Then you can play it as normal. Sounds a bit like a modified version of Vista to me, which would be acceptable.

I apologise if i've been a victim of the incredibly badly worded article

EDIT:

Oh no, i tell a lie:

For clarity, though, an internet connection is not required to install, just to activate the first time, and every 10 days after. You can be completely connectionless for 9 days and encounter no problems playing Mass Effect. And you don't need the disk in the drive to play.

[kalniel]

Personally i couldn't give a rats backside about leaving the disc in, that's a lot better than having to be online all the time just to play it (on a laptop for instance). Ah yes, but that's what they would say - what if it doesn't happen?

Not sure what you're saying - do you mean what if they don't take the auth system out/keep servers up? Well they've said they will - what if the sky falls down tommorow? Don't forget we do have the Sale of Goods Act to fall back on - we can get a refund from the retailer if the product stops working before the end of its reasonably expected lifetime.

[Whiternoise]

I'm saying that it's all very well claiming that they'll bring out a patch - which, they probably will - but in the event that they don't, most people aren't going to be very happy with their money back and a useless game that they might still want to play.

Obviously this is worst case scenario, but wouldn't it be better if there wasn't the possibility in the first place?

[fawlters]

Its entirely possible that I'm being stupid about this, but wouldn't a nice elegant solution be to require EITHER the disc be in the drive OR the online check? That way all those who forget/lose/don't like using their discs don't have to have them so long as they have internet, and those who have dodgy internet (admittedly not a huge number of people) or a dedicated offline gaming rig can all be appeased.

Maybe I'm looking at this from a far removed standpoint, but I can't see it being that hard to implement as a two step process:
1) Check for correct disc in drive
2) If disc is not found try for online check

Somebody please tell me if I'm being insane, but it seems like such a simple solution...

[Toole]

So we're just looking at more DRM that inconveniences the user? To be honest, the more of a pain in the arse they make this stuff, the more likely I am to pirate the damned thing to get around the irritation of having this kind of idiotic copy protection scheme. As for only being able to register the game three times, that is total bollocks. I do a clean install of windows every six months and have games from a long time ago I still play regularly. What if my copies of Diablo II or Deus Ex could only have been registered three times? I wouldn't be able to play them any more after 18 months.

[greektony]

So how exactly does this combat piracy? Surely this news will just encourage people to download a copy illegally? I agree with Toole on this one. EA are idiots if they think this will cirumvent piracy

[Ferral]

Look at Windows Vista, every few months it reactivates I beleive. It hasn't stopped piracy, there are still people out there with non legitimate copies. That is exactly what will happen here, it will make more people get copied versions than what it is worth.

Yeah a one off activation is not such a bad thing and no doubt that when a product is nearing the end of its life then a patch would be issued to remove the activation process.

This is where apps like Steam are great, you can take a game off and put it back on later as it is saved in my games. Nothing else to worry about with that one at all. I think some sort of digital distribution similar to Steam from EA would work better instead of every 10 days having to do an online check.

[noTHINGface]

I don't think that there's much to get excited about here, it's just another DRM and it will be cracked just like all attempts that went before if this bothers you too much. I'm pretty sure they will remove the check in a patch some years down the line so they can retire their auth servers so the game will go on etc, unlike MS and the rodding they gave to people who, foolishly, purchased plays-for-sure infected music!

I hope it doesn't put too many people off though, MA is a good game and I had hours of fun with it on the 360.

[merlin2001]

Just to throw another thought into the mix. A lot of the above assumes most people have access to the internet. I spend a lot of time between the UK where I enjoy XL broadband thnks to VM and South Africa (for work). Internet connectivity out there is a totally differant ballgame - broadband is very expensive compared to people's buying power and often capped at around 1Gig (most people use 3G cards as the mobile operators are more comptetitive than Telkom, the (until recently) monopoly provider of fixed line telecoms.. Most people tend to access the internet at work and may have PC's at home, but won't have them connected. This type of copy protection really is only going to encourage piracy out there imho. consider the choice... buy the game full price and have it suck up some of your precious bandwidth each 10 days or get it free on a ripped CD from a mate and never have to worry....

and I can't see this being much differant in a lot of other emerging markets where piracy is real problem...

[kalniel]

Isn't there the choice to simply buy a different game that doesn't need an internet connection? No-one's life will end if they can't play Mass Effect.

[nichomach]

kalniel, there are lots of things where one could say "no-one's life will end if x doesn't happen/get done/does happen"; that doesn't mean that the thing that would stop it happening isn't deeply objectionable. "No-one's life will end..." really isn't much of an argument; it's saying that unless the harm caused is so massively great as to kill someone, no harm should be objected to. No-one's life will end, true, but that doesn't alter the fact that the "phone home" requirements of ME are objectionably intrusive, open to abuse and leave the purchaser at the mercy of A) the company's servers staying up in perpetuity, or B) the company remembering to release a patch to disable the "phone home".

There are other games, but that's a fallacious argument, also; that's like the Louvre saying "We had nicked, but we put up instead - it's just another painting, right? So there's no difference..."
That just completely ignores the fact that there are qualitative and aesthetic differences; it's like telling someone that they can't play HL2, but it's OK because they can play Wii Sports.

[kalniel]

No-one's life will end, true, but that doesn't alter the fact that the "phone home" requirements of ME are objectionably intrusive, open to abuse and leave the purchaser at the mercy of A) the company's servers staying up in perpetuity, or B) the company remembering to release a patch to disable the "phone home".

But why don't you think A or B will happen? We've got no reason not to think it'll happen, and in fact a lot of evidence that it will (Bioware's NWN had the copy protection removed in a patch, Gothic 3 had the copy protection removed in a patch, Sacred had the copy protection removed in a patch...) it's not uncommon.

That just completely ignores the fact that there are qualitative and aesthetic differences; it's like telling someone that they can't play HL2, but it's OK because they can play Wii Sports.

You seem to be assuming that you would have to pay the same to see the drawing or play Wii Sports. You don't. *if* you get the same value for money out of seeing the drawing or playing Wii sports then I don't see the problem - someone has a clear choice that they can either pay for HL2 or pay for Wii sports - if they don't have an internet connection thus can't play HL2, then so what? If they get value for money out of wii sports then cool. If they don't think it's worth as much as is being charged then don't buy it.

[nichomach]

But why don't you think A or B will happen?

Because we've already had examples in this thread of situations where A) or B) HASN'T happened, and what you should be asking is not what will happen if everything happens according to plan, but what will happen if it doesn't.

You seem to be assuming that you would have to pay the same to see the drawing or play Wii Sports...

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. My point had nothing to do with the purchase price of the game and everything to do with the qualitative experience. Tell you what, lets remove every thriller, action movie, period drama, romance, tragedy etc. from cinemas and replace them all with Disney animations. After all, if the Disney animations are good value for money, no-one will mind not being able to see the other types of film, will they? *BZZZZZZZZZZZT* Wrong. You can't equate the one with the other, because the experience of each is different, and different people want different experiences; the purchase price of each and whether they are in the abstract "good value" is utterly irrelevant. If I want to see Die Hard 4 or whatever, I'm not going to be mollified by the fact that Aladdin's objectively good value for money; if I want to play Mass Effect, I'm not going to be mollified by the suggestion that I play Wii Sports.

[kalniel]

You've not understood me. If you don't want to play Wii Sports, or watch Disney then you ALWAYS have the option to watch nothing at all. It's not going to kill you.

[nichomach]

So we're back to the situation where no-one should object to anything unless the harm occasioned by it is sufficient to actually kill someone? Nonsense.

[kalniel]

So we're back to the situation where no-one should object to anything unless the harm occasioned by it is sufficient to actually kill someone? Nonsense.

Well if your objection comes in the form of not buying the game then of course you should object - that's just market forces. I'm not for one minute suggesting people buy a game they can't play or won't enjoy.

But you can't demand that a company makes a product solely to your ideal specifications, if you aren't the majority of the market.