EA Announces Expansion of Its Always Online DRM Policy

[demo]

Originally Posted by Ziklitschli

EA has just joined Ubisoft on my "pirate no matter what" publisher list.

I'm joining you, except I will have to buy Bad Company 3 and BF4 to play online

[Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Ziklitschli

EA has just joined Ubisoft on my "pirate no matter what" publisher list.

Thanks for justifying EA and Ubisoft

Ubisoft has taken their DRM to far, and guess what? I haven't played any of their games since then. I don't pirate them, that only makes me far far worse then they are, I just don't give them my money, and don't play their games.

But we already know that pirates will use any excuse to pirate a game, if it isn't one excuse, it is another. People simply just pirate because they don't want to pay for the games, but they think they can justify the reason to pirate as a form of "protest", just like you Ziklitchli.

[Mangler]

Don't forget to put Blizzard on that list too, since they also employs always online drm.

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by Mangler

Don't forget to put Blizzard on that list too, since they also employs always online drm.

I know, that's why I'm surprised to see so many people interested in GW2. I figured everyone would be boycotting it after the always online requirement for GW1.

[xNaquada]

Oh look.... EA showing again that they dont get it. I need always on DRM on all my prodcuts so I can access content from my cellphone? What kind of stupid logic is that. Just allow me to login/logout on my device, which I'll have to do ANYWAYS.
No one should be surprised anymore.

The fact of the matter is that you don’t “beat piracy,” and if that’s how you approach the issue, then you’re just going to frustrate everybody and get nowhere. What you really need to do is encourage people to be legitimate customers rather than pirates, and EA’s new policy most certainly does not attempt this in any shape or form.

^This is something that Valve (even with a DRM platform) and GOG get.
All you can do is hope your favorite studio doesn't get bought out (or is already owned) by EA.

EA=Cancer

[Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Bhruic

I know, that's why I'm surprised to see so many people interested in GW2. I figured everyone would be boycotting it after the always online requirement for GW1.

umm what? Guild Wars 1 was a Cooperative Online Role Playing game, Guild Wars 2 is an massive multiplayer Online game. Of course they are going to have an always on Internet connection in order to play the games. Complaining about those having an internet connection always needed, would be like complaining that Rage3d needs an always on internet connection to participate in it.

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by Eisberg

umm what? Guild Wars 1 was a Cooperative Online Role Playing game, Guild Wars 2 is an massive multiplayer Online game. Of course they are going to have an always on Internet connection in order to play the games. Complaining about those having an internet connection always needed, would be like complaining that Rage3d needs an always on internet connection to participate in it.

That was my point. Like or not (and I don't), Diablo 3 is designed as an online game. If you're willing to boycott Blizzard for making an online game, you might as well go all-out and boycott the rest of the companies making online games.

[Ziklitschli]

Originally Posted by Eisberg

Thanks for justifying EA and Ubisoft

If you mean that I'm raising the number of downloaded pirated games, I do it anyway to avoid the hassle even when I have the original copies. I bought Call of Pripyat but downloaded it at least 4 times, various versions and languages for example. I think there are tons of people like me who just demo the game through pirated copy or buy the game but download it to have a backup/ avoid online activations/ use different language in game/ whatever - EA or UBISOFT will throw the whole number anyway just to justify the crap they introduce for various reasons.

Originally Posted by Eisberg

Ubisoft has taken their DRM to far, and guess what? I haven't played any of their games since then. I don't pirate them, that only makes me far far worse then they are, I just don't give them my money, and don't play their games.

I'm not pirating everything they publish but if there's a game I like, I will play it and won't pay, pirate it no matter how much I consider it worth the price. I only pirated Far Cry 2, Silent Hunter V and Assasin Creed, spent maybe an hour on each and am not playing anymore.

Far worse, let's assume for a second that what they do is really dictated by the pirates problem and nothing more - maybe I am then, the whole pirate = thief equation is an overstatement though imo. Maybe I should not buy and not pirate at all but I like adding to a number that pisses those idiots off like nothing else. Even if you are right, don't care really tbh. I have more serious moral dillemas than my consumer attitudes harming insanely rich people who mostly live on making sure that their games are dumbed down and marketed enough to make them another profit without too much risk.

The money I will save not buying EA, Blizzard or UBI games I could buy otherwise will go to better publishers who haven't lost a touch with reality yet and do not waste resources on a war that is mainly in their heads.

I'm curious btw, for all the people with moral attachment to piracy, how would the prices look if there was no possibility to pirate games...

Originally Posted by Eisberg

But we already know that pirates will use any excuse to pirate a game, if it isn't one excuse, it is another. People simply just pirate because they don't want to pay for the games, but they think they can justify the reason to pirate as a form of "protest", just like you Ziklitchli.

I bought Dead Space and Crysis from EA. Sometimes if I pirate the game and it gives me a lot of fun but is already cheap in stores, I buy it plus something newer from the same developers no matter I want it or not just to support them (Relic). I am able to buy a tittle twice if it's half the price and I really feel it deserves a full price just like I did with Stalker CoP. I bought DCS:A10 despite the fact that I am not going to play it (I prefer Hokum) just because I support the developer and the genre. Those are top of my head examples and not sure if I fit your cathegory of making excuses to pirate, I could even buy a game from Activision if they ever made something that I can enjoy for more than 15 minutes.

Now, Ubisoft, EA and anyone using such DRM methods, I want to see their DRM broken each time, their games pirated to the sky and wish them losing money, developers and facing bankrupcies as soon as possible. I like the huge numbers of downloaded copies and their inability to do anything about it apart from crying loud and hope they will lose nerves and worsen their situation with more decisions like the one discussed. I'd like to see them finished just as an example for others to not copy their methods.

If everyone "protested" like me, Total War wouldn't be pirated once and the first game with Always Online DRM would sell 0 copies, flop and to add insult to the injury, everyone would play it. All good, imo.

Originally Posted by Mangler

Don't forget to put Blizzard on that list too, since they also employs always online drm.

I don't play Blizzard games, consider them over - simplistic. I had a plan to try Starcraft II again though, would buy it if it grew on me. Thanks for saving me money, didn't know about that DRM.

[Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Ziklitschli

I'm curious btw, for all the people with moral attachment to piracy, how would the prices look if there was no possibility to pirate games...

I wouldn't doubt that prices would be cheaper. Here is what we know, despite the extreme rise in costs of making games in the last 25 years, the prices of games have actually gone down if you take into consideration of inflation. The number of gamers have increased by millions, which made it so the industry was able to keep new games at the $40/50 price for so long. There are millions upon millions of people pirating out there, looking at how many the top selling games have, and then looking at how many people pirated them, yeah, the majority of gamers don't seem to be buying games at all. Heck, The Witcher 2 PC sold 1.1 million games, but was pirated around 5 million times.

[Ryoko]

wow.


i've never once played an EA game. never bought, never pirated, never even played a friend's copy.

looks like i'm not missing anything.

[Mangler]

You missed a lot of great games if you never played a game that ea developed/published.

[Jaws of Life]

Even if I wanted to pirate, I wouldn't be wasting my bandwith on EA titles, rofl.

[zebra 204]

Never will understand the point of DRM. It increases piracy, it increases the number of people boycotting a game, It make it hard for the paying customer to use the product but makes it easier for the pirate. When this happens what do devs/pubs do? Add more DRM!!

Herpderp.


At this point even getting rid of all DRM and even removing simple CD checks would be a more profitable tactic.

[mabran]

Originally Posted by Crisler

Okay first there is ZERO excuse for piracy, you are a sleezebag if you do it and it is that simple.

I personally have no issues with DRM's if they do nit interfer with my gaming experience. For example all my games right not are through Steam wwich has it's own DRM system in place and I have never had it get in the way of my playing the game.

Now I am not sure that EAs route here is a good one, considering it is EA it is problem a bad one without doubt, but that is not the point. If EA chooses to go this route you have two options, either buy the games and accept it or do not play those games. Piracy just justifies EAs position.

I agree 100%. However the self entitlement crowd today wants everything and they want it for free and will use any excuse to justify the actions.

point is if you don't purchase the product then you should not be using the product. Piracy is not just an excuse, it is a problem and it happens on all platforms with the PC being the worst of them all. Why should a company continue to support a platform where there are millions of users using the software that did not pay for it.

Pirates can justify it any way they want but if they don't agree with a company then just don't use the product plain and simple.

[Cartigan]

Originally Posted by mabran

Why should a company continue to support a platform where there are millions of users using the software that did not pay for it..

And millions using it that did

That's the problem with all these virulently anti-pirate DRM policies. It's JUST about trying to stymy pirates (and always failing) and customers are, at best, an afterthought. How is running a pirate-focusesd policy rather than a customer focused policy a good policy?

[mabran]

Originally Posted by Cartigan

And millions using it that did

That's the problem with all these virulently anti-pirate DRM policies. It's JUST about trying to stymy pirates (and always failing) and customers are, at best, an afterthought. How is running a pirate-focusesd policy rather than a customer focused policy a good policy?

Well they have to do something. Out of all my years of gaming, I have never had a DRM hinder my playing of any game.

What do you expect them to do, release it free of DRM? Then many of those paying customers will be non paying before you know it.

They have a right to protect their IP just as we as consumers have the right not to buy it if we don't agree with their practice. If you don't buy it then don't use the software.

Either way, the PC is the worst offender because of the open platform. How long do you expect companies to support the platform where a third of the users actually paid for the product and the rest didn't.

They have every right to protect their IP any way they see fit and if one does not agree then find another piece of software meeting the requirements.

I remember Access leaderboard golf on my old atari 800xl back in the day actually came with a hardware dongle that plugged in one of the joystick ports that without it rendered the game unplayable and that is a lot more invasive then anything we have now.

Today I buy a game and it runs, no hunting for words in a manual or hardware dongles like the old days.

The "give it to me it's mine" self entitlement crowd wants it all free just for showing up.

I know if I wrote software and found out people didn't pay me for my hard work, I wouldn't be so kind and would go on a kneecapping spree making sure they know what pain is for keeping money from me. OK a little over the top but hopefully you get the point.

[buckshot23]

Originally Posted by mabran

Well they have to do something. Out of all my years of gaming, I have never had a DRM hinder my playing of any game.

Never lose one of these?

What do you expect them to do, release it free of DRM? Then many of those paying customers will be non paying before you know it.

Why are you only looking at it from one side of the coin? What about the people who don't want to bother with these draconian DRM schemes? Do you think that they may be affected positively by removing DRM from the games they are interested in? You can't say only one group will be affected.

Either way, the PC is the worst offender because of the open platform. How long do you expect companies to support the platform where a third of the users actually paid for the product and the rest didn't.

They should concentrate on the people who are paying their bills not those who are downloading their games for free. The bottom line is they aren't able to stop piracy, they should concentrate on what they have control over. Their customer's user experiences.

[HybridHB]

Isnt it ironic that the only people getting pissed off are the pirates? Why would anyone care that a company is trying to protect its property?

[Cartigan]

Originally Posted by mabran

Well they have to do something. Out of all my years of gaming, I have never had a DRM hinder my playing of any game.

What do you expect them to do, release it free of DRM? Then many of those paying customers will be non paying before you know it.

Yeah, because developers and publishers releasing games without DRM are going broke because NO ONE is buying their games.
Oh wait, I mean the opposite where they are making plenty of money from people buying their games and not having to spend any money licensing an "anti-piracy" solution

Either way, the PC is the worst offender because of the open platform. How long do you expect companies to support the platform where a third of the users actually paid for the product and the rest didn't.

You mean like on consoles where there has been just as much piracy over the years through the use unlocked machines and LEGAL piracy, as far as the publishers are concerned, through the resale of used games? Oh ****ing please.

[Cartigan]

Originally Posted by HybridHB

Isnt it ironic that the only people getting pissed off are the pirates? Why would anyone care that a company is trying to protect its property?

What's funny about your clear insinuation is the pirates are the only ones NOT hampered by DRM.

[ASCI Blue]

I remember those dumb look crap up parts of the games. I'd almost rather have always online instead of where the crap did I put my Ultima 7 book.

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by HybridHB

Isnt it ironic that the only people getting pissed off are the pirates? Why would anyone care that a company is trying to protect its property?

Well, someone else already responded, but to elaborate... Pirates aren't pissed off. Games still get cracked, pirates still get to play them. In fact, pirates get to play them with less restrictions than customers. It's customers that are getting pissed off. My DSL line card accidentally got pulled 2 days ago, so my internet was out for over a day. The number of games I couldn't play (that I paid for) that I should have been able to play was considerable. I'm not talking about not being able to play an MMO, I'm talking about single player.

Frankly, it's damned annoying. Any game with an online requirement these days is an automatic strike against.

[HybridHB]

Originally Posted by Cartigan

What's funny about your clear insinuation is the pirates are the only ones NOT hampered by DRM.

Right, just like the guys who pirated Arkham Asylum? Funny how I pay for games and dont have issues...

[spindoctor]

i didn't know where to post this so i'm picking this thread. seems the most relevant. very cool stuff

nsfw language, don't click spoiler if you're offended easily

[Cartigan]

Originally Posted by HybridHB

Right, just like the guys who pirated Arkham Asylum?

And what problems were those?

You know what's great about breaking games of their "always online" requirement? You don't have to always be online to play them

[Perky McGiggles]

I bought Battlefield 3 which I more or less like... not as good as I thought it'd be. Then I bought Mass Effect 3 which, while I love Mass Effect, isn't up to par with the previous games quality. With that said, I don't see a reason to buy anymore EA games. I likely won't buy the next Battlefield installment, not without some good fellow gamer reviews, and Mass Effect is done. EA's track record has been less then great, and while I won't out right boycott their games, I am going to approach them each very skeptically. Especially with this new DRM policy. I think EA is finally getting to the point where the cons outweigh the pros of their games.

*I should note that I have no interest in pirating their games either.

[mabran]

Originally Posted by Cartigan

Yeah, because developers and publishers releasing games without DRM are going broke because NO ONE is buying their games.
Oh wait, I mean the opposite where they are making plenty of money from people buying their games and not having to spend any money licensing an "anti-piracy" solution

Of course the big companies are not going broke but it could break a smaller company but a trend I see is much like Linux diehards it's wrong to pick on the little guy and cool to beat up the big gorilla.

Irregardless of how much money they make, who are you to say when they have made enough. They made a product and deserve payment for their hard work if it's a good product. I run my own business and know my time is valuable and if someone takes my products and services for free better pray I never find them.

If DRM was intrusive I could see the complaint but show me one DRM on the market right now that hinders playing the game. If it affected playing the game I would be upset but none I have played have been affected by DRM. I am not too enthusiastic about always on internet though.

Originally Posted by Cartigan

You mean like on consoles where there has been just as much piracy over the years through the use unlocked machines and LEGAL piracy, as far as the publishers are concerned, through the resale of used games? Oh ****ing please.

Piracy on consoles is not even in the same league as on PC . Then again getting hardware banned from the consoles online service is a pretty big deterrent. CoD, Halo, Gears of War sell millions in under 24 hours upon release. With the exception of World of Warcraft, I would wager there are more pirate copies of (insert PC game name here) than purchased copies in use on the PC. It's all a matter of what the studios are willing to lose but selling millions of copies in 24 hours is a lot easier to absorb the few pirates to total copies sold.

Either way as the company they rightfully and should find avenues to make the most from the product. I'm not saying I agree with all the business practices as I don't, but the publisher more than likely answers to shareholders who do not care about anything but the bottom line.

[Cartigan]

Originally Posted by mabran

Of course the big companies are not going broke but it could break a smaller company but a trend I see is much like Linux diehards it's wrong to pick on the little guy and cool to beat up the big gorilla.

You mean like all the smaller companies, and I mean ALL, that aren't putting DRM on their titles because they can't afford the licensing fees?

Irregardless of how much money they make, who are you to say when they have made enough.

What the **** are you even talking about now?

If DRM was intrusive I could see the complaint but show me one DRM on the market right now that hinders playing the game.

THIS ONE. THE ONE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.

Piracy on consoles is not even in the same league as on PC .

Bullshit.

Then again getting hardware banned from the consoles online service is a pretty big deterrent.

Lol, because console piracy started when they became internet connected.

[buckshot23]

Does strict DRM create more sales or does it create less sales?

It boils down to this. I don't think there is any evidence that having super strict anti piracy measures forces people to buy games. What makes people buy games is good games. You'll always, and I stress, always have people who are going to pirate games. If you can't handle that then get out of the industry.

Does strict DRM deter piracy?

[Cartigan]

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Does strict DRM create more sales or does it create less sales?

That's impossible to test because no one is going to buy the same game twice. That's why selling big name games on the PC months after selling them on the console and blaming lack of PC sales on piracy is bullshit.