Mass Effect PC: DRM'ed Alien Sex

[Apocalypse]

Here is the deal. I am going to Iraq shortly after ME is released for the PC. I am not going to have regular internet connection while there and I will get on with my laptop even less. I don't have family to write to/call. Computer games were going t be my distraction. Looks like I will cross Mass Effect off my list.

[snoopy369]

That came up in the ME forums thread, no answer to that yet... it's an interesting question, though.

I think the D2D solution works fine (initial activation check). It's much less of a 'server going away' problem, because D2D is a major company and much less likely to go away than a game developer (though EA I suppose is also fairly safe here, they do regularly shut down their game servers). It lets you keep playing it as long as you don't reinstall Windows. And it clearly is an acceptable solution to publishers, because most non-EA publishers back it.

[DrSpike]

Played it twice, banged the blue alien chick, and saved the universe on my Xbox. So thankfully I can quite easily dodge the lameness that will ensue on the PC.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That came up in the ME forums thread, no answer to that yet... it's an interesting question, though.

Link?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Oh, I have no doubt of that...

I honestly don't mind copy protection including activation on install, and even limits on installs (though 3 is way too low), but I most certainly mind requiring checks to the server, particularly in the future. If I want to play this in 2015, which given my record is not unlikely (still play KOTOR periodically), I probably won't be able to ... and that's just not okay. Add on the essential inability to play while on vacation for more than a week, and it's just silly...

You know, if you buy the game, play it for 7 years, then in 2015 they turn off support, even somebody as stodgy as me isnt going to blame you for downloading the crack then (assuming they dont patch it to play standalone at that point - that sort if thing is done, right?)

[Heraclitus]

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Verto
Given the amount of piracy that goes on, I can't blame companies for taking these kind of measures.

Sure, piracy is a problem. I take issue with companies actively trying to make pirate versions of their software more attractive than legal copies. I mean seriously, which would you prefer? A single-player game that you could just load up and play, or a single-player game that forced you to be connected to the internet regularly. And limited the number of times you could reinstall the game. And probably reduced performace during the game to run these checks. This doesn't even include disparity in monetary costs or effort required to obtain the game.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
(assuming they dont patch it to play standalone at that point - that sort if thing is done, right?)

If they do, it will be the first time it has been done...

[Spaced Cowboy]

I really don't mind an initial phone home to register the SN with the publisher. I should be then able to install it as many times as I want with the same credentials.

I don't like the idea of it phoning home every 10 days, but that is not likely to affect me anyway. I prefer the only registered copies can access the patch and updates method that Stardock uses. The interface to update is within the game itself, admittedly could be cracked as well.

BTW, I had not issues with Bioshock at all. Installed it on my new machine, later had to wipe the machine, but moved my saved game before the wipe. Reinstalled it and finished the game without any issues.

Also you don't see at some point in the future where the game is selling for $10 in a jeweled case and they don't want to maintain the registration effort, so they just nerf that part of the code before they release it in that format?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

Sure, piracy is a problem. I take issue with companies actively trying to make pirate versions of their software more attractive than legal copies.

Pirated versions are always more attractive, because they cost 0$, compared to 50$. Remember, games didn't start this way. Originally you didn't need the CD in the drive, and people took advantage of that. Then CD keys got hacked, and so on and so on.

I don't think the solution used here with Mass Effect is ideal - like most DRM/copy protection, there's room for improvement. But the rampant piracy going on is ridiculous - that obviously is part of the reason companies are moving to consoles.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

If they do, it will be the first time it has been done...

They said it will happen, but this is EA...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Verto


Pirated versions are always more attractive, because they cost 0$, compared to 50$. Remember, games didn't start this way. Originally you didn't need the CD in the drive, and people took advantage of that. Then CD keys got hacked, and so on and so on.

I don't think the solution used here with Mass Effect is ideal - like most DRM/copy protection, there's room for improvement. But the rampant piracy going on is ridiculous - that obviously is part of the reason companies are moving to consoles.

The point Skanky is making is that, for everyone, there is a utility decision of the following nature:

(Utility of playing game) - (Utility of $50) - (Utility of DRM difficulties) > 0
vs
(Utility of playing game) - ([moral]Utility of pirating game) - (Utility of difficulty to obtain pirated game) > 0


When the former equation is not greater than zero, and the latter is (or the former equation is less than the latter, and the latter is greater than zero), people will pirate. The game companies are able to affect this equation in several ways:

1. Lower/raise price.
2. Increase/decrease game utility (ie, better game)
3. Decrease/Increase DRM difficulties

The tendency, unfortunately, has been towards the right side of all three options (ie, decreasing likelihood of purchasing game legally). Unless and until piracy is impossible, DRM will do nothing to prevent that; it will make it more challenging to create the first pirated copy, but beyond that it will not affect the pirate or not pirate decision in any way.

You have to wonder what gaming company executives are thinking, to be honest... they know their DRM won't work, they have to understand the above equations, and yet they continue to push more and more harsh DRM out there. I have to assume they actually simply want to punish gamers and think the slight decreased sales won't matter much ... either that or they are incredibly naive. One of the two.

[Quillan]

Only my opinion, but I think the idea is only to delay the release of pirated copies. A number of people aren't willing to wait for it, and will wind up shelling out money to play it now, and I think that's what the publishers are hoping for. I think in the long run it will backfire.

I personally don't have a problem with Steam; it's useful for more than just copy protection. But the companies have been coming up with more and more offensive schemes for copy protection that are really getting obnoxious. I also like the Stardock solution; only let officially registered copies make use of the patches, updates, and expansions.

[Solver]

Wow, that sounds worse than Bioshock by a good margin.

Besides, this really won't even work. Bioshock's copy protection was new and it took a while to crack - IIRC, a cracked version of the game appeared a week or so after its release, which is actually a long time. If Mass Effect uses the same or a slightly modified system, that means that a crack should be out the same day it's released, as usual - disabling the activation, the phone-home behaviour and all that.

The game itself really seems worth playing, though. Reactions to the console version were great.

[Verto]

When the former equation is not greater than zero, and the latter is (or the former equation is less than the latter, and the latter is greater than zero), people will pirate. The game companies are able to affect this equation in several ways:

1. Lower/raise price.
2. Increase/decrease game utility (ie, better game)
3. Decrease/Increase DRM difficulties

Those are all, for the most part, flimsy excuses thrown around so people can dignify their piracy. Companies should LOWER the cost they charge for games, while development costs increase? A few gamers might decide to buy the game instead of pirate it, but at what price point?

The argument that making a better game would lower piracy is complete bull****. Producing ****ty games on the other hand might help, by lowering the incentive one has to play it, much less pirate it.

Increasing DRM is a losing, escalating war, as it will inevitably be cracked.

So it seems obvious to me that game companies should write off the PC completely and publish exclusively to consoles, specifically the Xbox 360, where piracy, cheating, etc is considerably lower.