EA Announces Expansion of Its Always Online DRM Policy

That isn't a market. Are you really trying to imply that a few people selling games to friends or on Ebay is the same thing as Gamestop or Best Buy selling used console games? There has never been a PC used MARKET. I used that word for a very specific reason.

Uh actually it is a MARKET from an economic perspective, the fact that its not an organized market doesn't make it any less of a secondary market.....i.e. a set of processes or protocols which facilitate the exchange of goods and services.

So yes a market did exist, it just wasn't anywhere on the same scale as the market which exists today for console games.
 
Uh actually it is a MARKET from an economic perspective, the fact that its not an organized market doesn't make it any less of a secondary market.....i.e. a set of processes or protocols which facilitate the exchange of goods and services.

So yes a market did exist, it just wasn't anywhere on the same scale as the market which exists today for console games.

When I was talking about market I meant a large organized profit making market. I figured that would have been bloody freaking obvious unless you're just trying to be a jerk and argue semantics in which case go away.
 
Well it wasn't freaking obvious, and nothing in your post made it obvious, hence the reason I responded....but props for being an obnoxious ass hat.
 
Well it wasn't freaking obvious, and nothing in your post made it obvious, hence the reason I responded....but props for being an obnoxious ass hat.

I'll give you the first post not being as obvious as I would have liked but comparing individual sellers to Gamestop and Best Buy should have been a dead giveaway.
 
When prefaced by a statement that is technically wrong, those later comparisons only serve to confuse the discussion. You may have thought that it provided necessary clarity, but I happen to disagree.

I also disagree with the premise of your point that DRM is not intended to control second hand sales of PC games. The second hand market for console games has only taken on a life of its own with the current generation of consoles.....presumably because the population of gamers has dramatically exploded in more recent times, thus resulting in a larger demographic of persons who are happy to buy/sell used games. It wasn't until we were well into the current cycle that publishers and developers began to incessantly bitch and whine about how used sales were depriving them of revenue.

Contrast that experience with PC's which have taken advantage of online connectivity at a much earlier stage than consoles and therefore transitioned to online DRM schemes almost 8 years ago....which of course consoles are starting to do now. It is entirely plausible that a very large and organized profit taking used market would have developed much like what has occurred with consoles, but that the early adoption of online DRM effectively destroyed the viability of such a market.

Given the industry's mentality that every distinct user should have to pay for the content they consume (much like the movie and music industries), it would be naive to suggest that second hand sales of PC games, irrespective of how minute, has not in part motivated the migration to online DRM.
 
When prefaced by a statement that is technically wrong, those later comparisons only serve to confuse the discussion. You may have thought that it provided necessary clarity, but I happen to disagree.

I also disagree with the premise of your point that DRM is not intended to control second hand sales of PC games. The second hand market for console games has only taken on a life of its own with the current generation of consoles.....presumably because the population of gamers has dramatically exploded in more recent times, thus resulting in a larger demographic of persons who are happy to buy/sell used games. It wasn't until we were well into the current cycle that publishers and developers began to incessantly bitch and whine about how used sales were depriving them of revenue.

Contrast that experience with PC's which have taken advantage of online connectivity at a much earlier stage than consoles and therefore transitioned to online DRM schemes almost 8 years ago....which of course consoles are starting to do now. It is entirely plausible that a very large and organized profit taking used market would have developed much like what has occurred with consoles, but that the early adoption of online DRM effectively destroyed the viability of such a market.

Given the industry's mentality that every distinct user should have to pay for the content they consume (much like the movie and music industries), it would be naive to suggest that second hand sales of PC games, irrespective of how minute, has not in part motivated the migration to online DRM.

Hmm alright I'll give you that one. You're right.

I view DRM on PC more as a way for publishers to control everything you do with their games. Digital services at this point have completely killed selling used games on the PC now. Now they can turn their focus on controlling how you play their games and even when you play them. There was a time when I would buy it being totally about getting rid of used sales, but that's in the past.
 
I suppose EA is going down the path that Ubisoft made.

I just wish gaming/publishing developers would stop using online DRM because it does nothing for the legit customer, and pirates already found a way to circumvent it, so in other words, pirates win again.
 
Thankfully we have independent developers who are still willing to make DRM-free games.

Personally I'm fine with DRM like Steam and Origin. They want to prevent second hand sales, fine. But DRM that require us to be connected all the time even for single player games like the Sims franchise is just ridiculous. It serves no purpose because no any DRM can prevent piracy, and Origin already prevents second hand sales, so why further inconvenience your customers?
 
I suppose EA is going down the path that Ubisoft made.

I just wish gaming/publishing developers would stop using online DRM because it does nothing for the legit customer, and pirates already found a way to circumvent it, so in other words, pirates win again.

Actually if they hide enough behind the online service, the pirated version becomes crippleware. Cracking DRM is one thing, implementing bootleg offline support for features that run on a remote server takes considerably more time and effort. Several Ubisoft titles have some features you cannot access in the pirated version.
 
Actually if they hide enough behind the online service, the pirated version becomes crippleware. Cracking DRM is one thing, implementing bootleg offline support for features that run on a remote server takes considerably more time and effort. Several Ubisoft titles have some features you cannot access in the pirated version.

What features are you referring to?
 
I am against all of this. Sure they need to stop piracy but most of their stuff is sypware and just plain bullshit.

look at punkbuster for an example of why the F is it running all the time?
Same with origin, start up bf3 there is origin, WHY ?
quit bf3 and origin is still running. WHY ?

now we have always connected on single player games. WHY do I need to connect to the internet to play a single player game on my computer. TO keep track of anything I might do BESIDES play the game?

I can see connecting to validate and then disconnect (but then this is BS if I can't play because I can't connect)

I purchased <<<get that purchased the orange box from steamworks. The first 3 days I had it I could not play anything.
OH YOU NEED TO CONNECT TO STEAM to turn OFF that connect to play thing.
their servers were down for those 3 days. WTF I paid<<< GET THAT PAID and then I get F'd because their servers are down.
BULLS#$%

they don't give one rats ass about the customers and piracy is all bs about how to tell the big shots in the company how we didn't put out a lemon and how it would have sold but piracy killed it.
NO you put out something NO ONE WOULD BUY!!!
BUT you have a great excuse as to why it didn't sell.
DAMN PIRATES

and I don't sell old game but I think I have the right too.
OH I want a new car but I can't sell my old one and if I did the person purchasing it would be arrested for pirating the car.
So its against the law to drive it until you go to a dealership and pay them a fee.
HUH

same thing just a different way of saying it.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to see how it goes when the inevitable happens and the console folks see this, too. If any of the rumors end up being true, the next round of consoles are going to see something along these lines as well.

Bottom line: I really wonder how much time I have left as a videogamer?
 
I am not totally opposed to this, because I believe it will happen sooner or later regardless. I am displeased with EA implementing it because they are so quick to shut down servers and games. I could see games becoming obsolete within a year or 2 even on the PC if this is required.
 
What features are you referring to?

In Assassin's Creed Brotherood, for example. In Brotherhood the cracked version couldn't access the investments. In Anno 2070, you are blocked from using the full capabilities of the Ark (and research labs too IIRC.), which is frankly a massive blow to replay value since part of the awesomeness of Anno 2070 is that you can research modules and shit and use them in a new game. But not in the pirated version.

This form of DRM works because the crackers can't be bothered to find a way around it. They just get the majority of the game playable and then move on. Eventually more and more of these titles will have increasingly critical online features that would require reverse engineering and emulation rather than a simple crack.
 
This form of DRM works because the crackers can't be bothered to find a way around it. They just get the majority of the game playable and then move on. Eventually more and more of these titles will have increasingly critical online features that would require reverse engineering and emulation rather than a simple crack.

It's just a matter of time, though. They'll crack it.
 
In Assassin's Creed Brotherood, for example. In Brotherhood the cracked version couldn't access the investments. In Anno 2070, you are blocked from using the full capabilities of the Ark (and research labs too IIRC.), which is frankly a massive blow to replay value since part of the awesomeness of Anno 2070 is that you can research modules and shit and use them in a new game. But not in the pirated version.

This form of DRM works because the crackers can't be bothered to find a way around it. They just get the majority of the game playable and then move on. Eventually more and more of these titles will have increasingly critical online features that would require reverse engineering and emulation rather than a simple crack.

It works until companies take their servers offline for three god damn weeks rendering every game that uses that DRM unplayable.
 
In Assassin's Creed Brotherood, for example. In Brotherhood the cracked version couldn't access the investments. In Anno 2070, you are blocked from using the full capabilities of the Ark (and research labs too IIRC.), which is frankly a massive blow to replay value since part of the awesomeness of Anno 2070 is that you can research modules and shit and use them in a new game. But not in the pirated version.

This form of DRM works because the crackers can't be bothered to find a way around it. They just get the majority of the game playable and then move on. Eventually more and more of these titles will have increasingly critical online features that would require reverse engineering and emulation rather than a simple crack.

It also only works until someone has internet problems or runs into their data usage cap.
 
We saw how well no-DRM worked(It had it for what 2 months...?) The Witcher 2. What was it, 3 million pirated copies and a little over 3 million sold? There is no way to win with Pirates, you just can't. Give the customer what they want, get pirated the fuck out of. Give them DRM crap, get pirated the fuck out of with maybe a few less since its not as mainstream(lol).

Can't win with tards, some of which are on this forum, who pirate just because they hate a company or feel like pirating.
 
It's just a matter of time, though. They'll crack it.

Seeing as how those features are still missing a year or more after the games release, it seems doubtful that they are still working on it.

Unless your definition of "works" is something other than "improves sales", I think you're mistaken.

Oh, no, by "works" I mean "makes the pirated version less desirable than the real version." I don't think piracy affects sales that much to begin with. Our main complaint over the years is that pirates are not inconvenienced by the DRM, but we are. In this case, we both get inconvenienced, but only legit customers get the entire game.

It works until companies take their servers offline for three god damn weeks rendering every game that uses that DRM unplayable.

Or until some tools DDoS the game servers, etc. I'm not saying this form of DRM is convenient, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that it's the only scheme that the warez scene has yet to completely destroy.
 
We saw how well no-DRM worked(It had it for what 2 months...?) The Witcher 2. What was it, 3 million pirated copies and a little over 3 million sold? There is no way to win with Pirates, you just can't. Give the customer what they want, get pirated the fuck out of. Give them DRM crap, get pirated the fuck out of with maybe a few less since its not as mainstream(lol).

Can't win with tards, some of which are on this forum, who pirate just because they hate a company or feel like pirating.

Yup, ever since TW2, when I see a discussion like this I'm more pissed at pirates than I am at the companies implementing this shit. Fuck pirates.
 
We saw how well no-DRM worked(It had it for what 2 months...?) The Witcher 2. What was it, 3 million pirated copies and a little over 3 million sold? There is no way to win with Pirates, you just can't. Give the customer what they want, get pirated the fuck out of. Give them DRM crap, get pirated the fuck out of with maybe a few less since its not as mainstream(lol).

Can't win with tards, some of which are on this forum, who pirate just because they hate a company or feel like pirating.

You nailed it.
 
We saw how well no-DRM worked(It had it for what 2 months...?) The Witcher 2. What was it, 3 million pirated copies and a little over 3 million sold? There is no way to win with Pirates, you just can't. Give the customer what they want, get pirated the fuck out of. Give them DRM crap, get pirated the fuck out of with maybe a few less since its not as mainstream(lol).

Can't win with tards, some of which are on this forum, who pirate just because they hate a company or feel like pirating.

You know what CDP did when they saw those numbers? Nothing. Despite Witcher 2's large piracy numbers (3 million pirated copies to 1 million sales, by the way) CDP still believes DRM-free is the way to go for PC games. However I'm willing to bet the large numbers also influenced their decision to go multiplatform.
 
DRM does not prevent piracy, and they know it before they even put it into practice.

They tries to get in control of second hand market.

I'm pretty sure I said.. it all fails :p Hense why its pointless.
 
Can't win with tards, some of which are on this forum, who pirate just because they hate a company or feel like pirating.

I also see the reason, "that game isn't worth money [except I want to play the shit out of it anyway]", a lot. If it isn't worth the money they are asking then don't pirate it. I want a Porsche 911 does that mean I should go steal one because I don't feel like it's worth as much as Porsche wants for one?
 
Piracy is one of those things developers/publishers simply should not concern themselves with. I view pirates as people who pass by a brick-and-mortar without entering: they are only potential customers. Enticing them to enter by offering them and incentive to do is wise, but you can't have a system whereby the customers who come in to your store frequently will be scared off.

That's not to say that software piracy is acceptable, because it isn't, but from the perspective of content providers, it's a factor which shouldn't enter into the decision-making process. All that needs to be considered is how to make better products.
 
Piracy is one of those things developers/publishers simply should not concern themselves with. I view pirates as people who pass by a brick-and-mortar without entering: they are only potential customers. Enticing them to enter by offering them and incentive to do is wise, but you can't have a system whereby the customers who come in to your store frequently will be scared off.

That's not to say that software piracy is acceptable, because it isn't, but from the perspective of content providers, it's a factor which shouldn't enter into the decision-making process. All that needs to be considered is how to make better products.

They should worry about pirates but to the point of trying to think about how to draw them in as paying customers, not how to fight it because fighting piracy with DRM is not only fruitless but it can create more pirates.
 
Love the always connected DRM, screw the pirates. By 2014 every game will require this. For the rare times I don't have access, I think I can manage.
 
You know what CDP did when they saw those numbers? Nothing. Despite Witcher 2's large piracy numbers (3 million pirated copies to 1 million sales, by the way) CDP still believes DRM-free is the way to go for PC games. However I'm willing to bet the large numbers also influenced their decision to go multiplatform.

They started suing people until they got major backlash for it.
 
Love the always connected DRM, screw the pirates. By 2014 every game will require this. For the rare times I don't have access, I think I can manage.

It won't screw the pirates. They'll just use a cracked version that doesn't have it. The person it will screw is, well, you. You'll be the guy apoplectic with rage in a forum because something gets screwed up with your net or their servers or whatever and you can't play any games for 3 days while the pirates go on about their business.

Also you might want to ask people in the armed forces what they think of the idea, how reliable their Internet is. Not everyone spends all their time laying around at home.
 
I don't see the issue with always-online DRM. It's not 1999 where everyone is running 56K modems...:rolleyes:;)
 
I don't see the issue with always-online DRM. It's not 1999 where everyone is running 56K modems...:rolleyes:;)

Because everyone on the bloody planet has perfectly stable internet and absolutely zero monthly data caps and it's not like studios can't pull a Ubisoft and shut down their servers FOR THREE FUCKING WEEKS rendering games using this DRM unplayable. I'm sure everything is 100% perfect and we should trust that these companies won't do anything to fuck us over in the future with this DRM since there is no evidence at all of EA ever screwing over customers.
 
Because everyone on the bloody planet has perfectly stable internet and absolutely zero monthly data caps and it's not like studios can't pull a Ubisoft and shut down their servers FOR THREE FUCKING WEEKS rendering games using this DRM unplayable. I'm sure everything is 100% perfect and we should trust that these companies won't do anything to fuck us over in the future with this DRM since there is no evidence at all of EA ever screwing over customers.

What is the percentage of people that don't have stable internet? I'm sure its quite low. And really, are you that addicted that you can't handle a little down time due to server maintenance or other issues?
 
What is the percentage of people that don't have stable internet? I'm sure its quite low. And really, are you that addicted that you can't handle a little down time due to server maintenance or other issues?

A little down time is a few hours. Three weeks is inexcusable.
 
Ummm, well, lots of people. I've had internet instability. For about a month my connection just kept randomly dropping. They could not seem to figure out what the issue was or fix it (it was the CMTS, which I told them, but whatever). I had to pretty much give up on online gaming during that time, it was just impossible with getting kicked out at random times for random intervals. Netflix was also a bitch to watch you'd be watching and suddenly shit would drop.

So what do I have Internet wise? Business class cable Internet, high tier. It is about as high quality as you can get before going to dedicated metro Ethernet lines or the like, and is pretty expensive ($140/month). So it is pretty unreasonable to say I should just "get better Internet" I've already got good shit. Normally it works well too, however even a net connection above residential quality has problems.

Then of course there are the people who don't like in the middle of a large city with good connections. I know people on the outskirts here that have IDSL, satellite, or even just dialup because they can't get anything else. Where they are, the communications providers don't see fit to bring in high quality Internet.

Then past that there's people who live in countries less affluent than the US. You sniff around South America, Eastern Europe and so on and you find that Internet is usually available, but on the flaky side. I guy I know in the Foreign Service over in Eastern Europe has 3 Internet connections because with that, he can nearly always have at least one working (and making US State Department money there he can afford it).

Or what about people in the military? Never mind the bases in war zones (which have shit Internet, if any), just take some regular deployments. Ships do have Internet access, but it sucks. It isn't like every sailor has broadband speeds in their bunk or anything. Then of course you take something like a sub, where there's NO outside communication for most of a deployment.

Internet problems just happen. That is life. Now that's fine, but that is part of the reason to have offline games. I have single player games so I can play something if the net is down, same reason to have DVDs if Netflix is down and so on.

Also I think it is a little unreasonable to call someone addicted if they are angry about a three week downtime, which yes Ubisoft really did have. So I should just not want to play games for almost an entire month just because they have paranoid DRM? That seems a little unreasonable.

If you've never experienced Internet problems, or been somewhere that you might want to play games but don't have the Internet (like an airplane), then you live a sheltered life and have gotten lucky net wise. Most people have some time when they are "off the grid" so to speak, but we don't feel that we should just have to sit and stare at a wall.

I mean these online DRM arguments can be made for anything else, video, ebooks, and so on. You really want a world where if you can't connect to the Internet you have nothing to do? I don't, I like it now where the Internet is a really cool thing that I use a ton, but if I disconnect I can still do things. I can play videogames, watch movies, read books, and so on. I don't have to sit and do nothing until the net comes back.

Always on DRM would change that. All that, and I've seen no proof that it does anything to increase game sales. Remember: The ONLY thing DRM can do useful is increase sales. If it doesn't do that, it is useless. The amount a game is pirated is not relevant. All that matters is how many copies are sold. Let's see the evidence that always-on DRM helps with that, because I've seen none.

I can personally verify it loses sales. I have not, and will not, buy Assassin's Creed 2, Settlers 7 and Might & Magic: Heroes 6. They are all games I want, all games I was prepared to spend money on. I own none of them, and I won't because of the DRM. I haven't pirated them, I just spend my money elsewhere.
 
Damn, Ubisoft, Activision, and now, EA. B4 long all I am going to have is my current collection, and indies.

Just stop buying. If enough people do, they will get the point. Well prolly not, they will just claim that piracy caused low sales, not people deciding not to buy from a company that treats the paying customer like a thief.
 
Back
Top