EA boycotts

[Frostex]

You're trying to argue that Blizzard's games still sell well because they are good, despite lack of DRM. That is easily countered with saying they still sell well because they require a CD key to play the stuff still worth playing.

So no, you fail at reading comprehension.

No he's saying they have less draconian DRM, a level of which most would find acceptable in comparison to more harsh DRM which is less desireable.

I'm not sure why you have such a hard time grasping that this is a sliding scale and not black and white, games have had anti piracy measures for years and years, it's just now it's starting to get so bad that it's effecting legitimate users, and it's now that people are starting to complain.

I dont think i've ever seen anyone complain about having to enter a CD key, certainly not made a good argument as to why we shouldn't have it. Yet its easy to outline realisitc conditions in which modern DRM is a functional problem.

 

[finalgt]

Having to enter a CDKey you have during install is very different from having to activate each install, having limited activations, and having the game possibly shut off or need reactivation if you install new hardware. To compare the two is simply foolish beyond measure. Wow being the only exception as it is an MMO, and having to log in to play is expected for an online only game.

See, and that's a point worth clarifying: what is the key difference between requiring a CD key and setting an activation limit that makes the former acceptable and the latter invasive? Both methods are clearly forms of DRM, so why is one okay and the other worth inciting a "boycott" over?

 

[demingo]

If thats the best you have, then you are more foolish than you appear bonsai. One, I never agrued against DRM, I argue against DRM that makes the legit end user suffer.

Also, worth playing is a matter of opinion. I know people who never touch the multiplayer on these games. Finally, if you do want to play online, there are tons of cracked battle.net servers and even free to play private wow servers out there.

Blizzards games have been hacked and cracked in every way, and still sell.

 

[Frostex]

See, and that's a point worth clarifying: what is the key difference between requiring a CD key and setting an activation limit that makes the former acceptable and the latter invasive? Both methods are clearly forms of DRM, so why is one okay and the other worth inciting a "boycott" over?

Do you really, HONESTLY need that explaining to you?

 

[demingo]

See, and that's a point worth clarifying: what is the key difference between requiring a CD key and setting an activation limit that makes the former acceptable and the latter invasive? Both methods are clearly forms of DRM, so why is one okay and the other worth inciting a "boycott" over?

Good point actually. One is okay and there other is not because I (and many others) deem one too intrusive and too likely to be abused. Activation limits based around hardware changes and reinstall are far more likely in my mind to ruin an end user expeience than having to enter a cdkey once.

So I stick with my boycott of not buying any games which force install limits. I am NOT anti-drm. I am opposed to DRM which is intrusive and makes legit customers suffer more than the pirates who enjoy the game DRM free a week before it hits retail.

 

[bonsai]

One, I never agrued against DRM, I argue against DRM that makes the legit end user suffer.

Oh i get it, you argue over DRM that 98% of users will never see (like activation limits), but over DRM that 100% WILL see (like CD keys and Steam). That makes complete sense.

And yes, there are hacked and private B-Net and WoW servers, but the vast majority of users play on official supported servers, so once again, moot.

 

[Belgain Roffles]

Do you really, HONESTLY need that explaining to you?

I was thinking the same thing.

Let's see, one lets you play the game as much as you want, on any hardware you want, anywhere you want, as long as you don't share your key with someone else and they're trying to play at the same time. If game servers go down, you can still play.

 

[demingo]

Oh i get it, you argue over DRM that 98% of users will never see (like activation limits), but over DRM that 100% WILL see (like CD keys and Steam). That makes complete sense.

And yes, there are hacked and private B-Net and WoW servers, but the vast majority of users play on official supported servers, so once again, moot.

Where did you get your 98% number? Did you poll everyone who bought one of these games? You keep going out on a limb to defend these DRM methods... why?

What benefit as an end user and consumer of pc games do you have from DRM?

 

[bonsai]

Where did you get your 98% number?

EA CEO John Ricitiello recently spoke out on the subject, admitting that while he doesn't personally like DRM, it is needed to fight piracy and is "something that 99.8 percent of users wouldn't notice."

You keep going out on a limb to defend these DRM methods... why?

I'm not defending DRM, I'm defending against idiotic arguments. If you want to stop DRM cry foul against the pirates, not the developers. The difference here is that the pirates don't give a shit what you say, but you think the developers do, hence why we have endless threads like this one. Justifying piracy in any form will do no one any good for the long term.

 

[Frostex]

Oh i get it, you argue over DRM that 98% of users will never see (like activation limits), but over DRM that 100% WILL see (like CD keys and Steam). That makes complete sense.

And yes, there are hacked and private B-Net and WoW servers, but the vast majority of users play on official supported servers, so once again, moot.

Ugh I can't believe I actually have to type this...CD keys aren't intrusive, so it's irrelevent how many people see them.

Compared to more draconian DRM which causes legitimate users to have problems with the game.

I'm not defending DRM, I'm defending against idiotic arguments. If you want to stop DRM cry foul against the pirates, not the developers. The difference here is that the pirates don't give a shit what you say, but you think the developers do, hence why we have endless threads like this one. Justifying piracy in any form will do no one any good for the long term.

Crying foul against pirates isn't going to do a thing to stop them, however boycotting has been proven to work in the past, you just need significant enough numbers, we don't have enough right now but then as DRM gets worse we'll see more people supporting this until it snowballs and becomes a real issue for developers.

 

[demingo]

You're quoting the CEO of the company which is being labeled for boycott as an unbiased source to give an accurate statistic...... You really are foolish.

I can't go after the pirates, by I can hit the publishers where it hurts with my dollar.

Its very simple, if I dont like your product (DRM is games) you dont get my money.

 

[finalgt]

Do you really, HONESTLY need that explaining to you?

No, I don't need it explained to me, and that's not what I asked. If you haven't noticed, I'm not an idiot. I know why people say activation limits are worse, but I was looking to see if somebody could tell me why it is worse. In other words, how has this affected you adversely? Personally. A personal experience in which you got shafted because of an activation limit. That is what I'm asking for.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Do you see why developers think "traditional DRM" (CD keys) have failed and are moving to more and more invasive DRM? Do you see why so many games list "Internet Connection" as a minimum requirement now, why developers are seeking to tie installation IDs to specific computers and how you're fooling yourself if you think the industry as a whole is going to move away from that instead of closer towards it?

 

[finalgt]

You're quoting the CEO of the company which is being labeled for boycott as an unbiased source to give an accurate statistic...... You really are foolish.

I can't go after the pirates, by I can hit the publishers where it hurts with my dollar.

Its very simple, if I dont like your product (DRM is games) you dont get my money.

And once again, I'm not defending DRM. I'm just so fucking annoyed with the amount of people who have this chain of rationalization set up:

1. Copyright infringement isn't theft, because theft involves the loss of an actual product and therefore a demonstrable, tangible loss, whereas copyright infringement just eliminates a potential sale. Thus why so few pirates would actually steal a physical copy of whatever they're pirating from Best Buy, supposedly.
2. Because the loss of a potential sale can not be accurately linked to the loss of an actual sale, the two are therefore mutually exclusive.
3. If the loss of a potential sale is not the loss of an actual sale, the company is not harmed by piracy.
4. If the company is not harmed by piracy and my potential sale was not going to be converted into an actual sale because (choose one):
a. they did not release a demo
b. they have [insert form of DRM I disagree with]
c. they are releasing [name of game] [number of months between PC release and console release] months after console game
c2. and it is just a shitty console port

then there is no harm done by my piracy and the company is at fault for driving me to it.

Every single argument for piracy that I've heard is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst riddled with fallacy.

 

[Frostex]

No, I don't need it explained to me, and that's not what I asked. If you haven't noticed, I'm not an idiot. I know why people say activation limits are worse, but I was looking to see if somebody could tell me why it is worse. In other words, how has this affected you adversely? Personally. A personal experience in which you got shafted because of an activation limit. That is what I'm asking for.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Do you see why developers think "traditional DRM" (CD keys) have failed and are moving to more and more invasive DRM? Do you see why so many games list "Internet Connection" as a minimum requirement now, why developers are seeking to tie installation IDs to specific computers and how you're fooling yourself if you think the industry as a whole is going to move away from that instead of closer towards it?

Yes I do see what you're getting at but I still think you're wrong.

A small number of people have had issues so far, and I personally think that it's not a good sacrafice considering that nothing of any value is gained from it, casual piracy still isnt possible and online piracy isn't hindered in the slightest.

Even if it doesn't effect me theres 2 things we should consider, just because it doesn't effect me now doesn't mean it wont in the future, nor does it mean that it doesn't effect anyone else.

Yes, the number of people trying to activate spore about 3 days after its release, is really small, because the chances of people needing to reinstall in that time are slim, but what about over a few weeks, a few months, 1/2 a year, a year?

Thats a clear manipulation of the numbers to make the appearance of DRM less harsh, and it's really lame.

I've seen the problems with DRM plenty of times and it would be niave to think that you're never going to have issues, places like the bioshock forums were crammed with thread of people having issues with activation on launch day, if all those people could have avoided issues because of less harsh DRM then thats a good thing, for both the players and the developers...

Now if you were to aruge that DRM was super-brilliant and stopped piracy dead in its tracks I might consider the argument a little differently, I'd probably argue that its ok that a few percent of people have issues if it stops piracy, it wouldn't be ideal but at least there would be a sensible, logical reason for it.

But it's not like that, harsh DRM is no better at its job than lite DRM (I really hope you understand the meaning behind harsh and lite in this context) and so that argumnt isn't valid, and all the people who suffered problems, did so with no good reason.

I dont know about you, but that pisses me off, and I've hardly been effected by DRM at all, so god knows how the people not able to play their game feel, probably like stangling the devs.

 

[Frostex]

And once again, I'm not defending DRM. I'm just so fucking annoyed with the amount of people who have this chain of rationalization set up:

1. Copyright infringement isn't theft, because theft involves the loss of an actual product and therefore a demonstrable, tangible loss, whereas copyright infringement just eliminates a potential sale. Thus why so few pirates would actually steal a physical copy of whatever they're pirating from Best Buy, supposedly.
2. Because the loss of a potential sale can not be accurately linked to the loss of an actual sale, the two are therefore mutually exclusive.
3. If the loss of a potential sale is not the loss of an actual sale, the company is not harmed by piracy.
4. If the company is not harmed by piracy and my potential sale was not going to be converted into an actual sale because (choose one):
a. they did not release a demo
b. they have [insert form of DRM I disagree with]
c. they are releasing [name of game] [number of months between PC release and console release] months after console game
c2. and it is just a shitty console port

then there is no harm done by my piracy and the company is at fault for driving me to it.

Every single argument for piracy that I've heard is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst riddled with fallacy.

And actually I think that arument is perfectly valid as long as the person making it is being intellectually honest with themselves, the fraction of people pirating games that this argument may apply to, is probably very small and I would definately argue that it doesn't constitute the majorety of pirates. However on the other hand I dont see an awful lot of people making this claim.

I would guess the majorety of people pirating games dont feel the need to justify their actions, they just do it anyway, the people who come to make this argument (i make it myself) are the ones who actually pay for games, but feel strongly about certain things like DRM or shitty console ports etc.

 

[Zinn]

And once again, I'm not defending DRM. I'm just so fucking annoyed with the amount of people who have this chain of rationalization set up:

1. Copyright infringement isn't theft, because theft involves the loss of an actual product and therefore a demonstrable, tangible loss, whereas copyright infringement just eliminates a potential sale. Thus why so few pirates would actually steal a physical copy of whatever they're pirating from Best Buy, supposedly.
2. Because the loss of a potential sale can not be accurately linked to the loss of an actual sale, the two are therefore mutually exclusive.
3. If the loss of a potential sale is not the loss of an actual sale, the company is not harmed by piracy.
4. If the company is not harmed by piracy and my potential sale was not going to be converted into an actual sale because (choose one):
a. they did not release a demo
b. they have [insert form of DRM I disagree with]
c. they are releasing [name of game] [number of months between PC release and console release] months after console game
c2. and it is just a shitty console port

then there is no harm done by my piracy and the company is at fault for driving me to it.

Every single argument for piracy that I've heard is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst riddled with fallacy.

You win this thread.

 

[phide]

what is the key difference between requiring a CD key and setting an activation limit that makes the former acceptable and the latter invasive?

An easy (but long) answer!

Fundamentally, we're talking about a change in usage rights. A game protected by a CD key can be installed on any number of machines and by any number of users. A game protected via activation limits (or alternatively, install limits) can not be installed on any number of machines unless certain conditions are met. I'm going to refer to SecuROM here a lot, since that's the main tool EA is using these days. So, without further ado...

The first condition is that the machine must be able to connect to the internet during installation/activation. This isn't a major issue for many, and I'm not particularly bothered by that requirement (being a heavy Steam user), but this is not a requirement for games protected by CD keys.

The second condition is that, at some point in the installation process, an undisclosed application has to be installed. SecuROM creates registry keys, install files to two to three different locations on your hard drive and installs a Windows service. Uninstallation of the game does not typically result in uninstallation of SecuROM even if no other games installed require it for validation. Thusly, SecuROM -- and other copy protection systems like it -- can be considered "badware". A game protected by a CD key need not install any badware, but obviously some CD key-protected games may still install badware, malware, etc.

The third condition is that you must rely on a third party to manage your usage rights, whereas with a CD key, you are in charge of your rights. A game protected by only a CD key can be played offline on any number of machines, while multiplayer usage requires that only one key be in use at any time. This allows the user to determine which machine has multiplayer access at any given time and which machine does not. With activation/install limits, the user can sometimes self-manage his activations/installations via a revoke tool (which may or may not be available). Otherwise, additional activations/installations beyond the preset limit require contacting a third party who may or may not be available and who may or may not grant additional activations/installations.

So, there are three main conditions attached to the kind of installation/activations limits imposed by SecuROM. This isn't even touching on SecuROM CD copy protection, which removes the ability for users to create archival copies of their game CDs/DVDs in addition to the issue where certain drives or hardware configurations can't read protected CDs/DVDs or where protected CDs/DVDs cause permanent damage to certain drives. Non-protected media -- like those sometimes used for games which use CD keys -- pose no such problems. Users can easily create archival copies and can theoretically use these CDs on any supporting drives.

 

[Tetrahedron]

Robin Hood is a terrorist! Boston Tea Party participators were terrorists, thieves, etc.

I am sick of hearing about how software pirates are evil and wrongdoers, at my college, they have a thing called 'Digital Citizenship' and how one should be ethical and abide by the laws of the digital world. Well I question them all on this:

If one is a citizen, and believes that there is great concern and cause of the way things are going in the land of their citizenship, is not the right thing to do to stand up and fight against these concerns? Is this not what a true citizen does? Is citizenship not in the eye of the beholder, in regards to how said things happen in the realm the citizenship is held? Do citizens not define what is ethical and what the laws will be followed ultimately?

If all these are true, then those citizens who feel that the current laws and regulations, distribution channels, limitations and all things that they feel impede on the progression of digital world and digital citizenship need to be challenged and changed... then are these so-called rogue digital citizens not doing the calling of what it means to be citizen? If there means are through piracy, then so be it.. who are we to judge, maybe they have a plan, maybe they have the right idea, maybe some, probably not all are trying to start a revolution on the way the digital world is run by the corporate suits of profit who stifle progression and creative to pad their own greedy wallets?

Everyone agreed, that this is what a citizen should do, and especially in a digital citizenship world, though not all agreed that piracy was the best way to go, neither do I, but I am just saying that sometimes it takes a "war," of independence to break free from the grasps of the old world, ruled by rich merchants and kings who are bent on controlling the masses through any means necessary.

 

[finalgt]

That was by far the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Are rapists waging a war of independence, challenging society's definition of consensual sex?

 

[TheCommander]

And once again, I'm not defending DRM. I'm just so fucking annoyed with the amount of people who have this chain of rationalization set up:

1. Copyright infringement isn't theft, because theft involves the loss of an actual product and therefore a demonstrable, tangible loss, whereas copyright infringement just eliminates a potential sale. Thus why so few pirates would actually steal a physical copy of whatever they're pirating from Best Buy, supposedly.
2. Because the loss of a potential sale can not be accurately linked to the loss of an actual sale, the two are therefore mutually exclusive.
3. If the loss of a potential sale is not the loss of an actual sale, the company is not harmed by piracy.
4. If the company is not harmed by piracy and my potential sale was not going to be converted into an actual sale because (choose one):
a. they did not release a demo
b. they have [insert form of DRM I disagree with]
c. they are releasing [name of game] [number of months between PC release and console release] months after console game
c2. and it is just a shitty console port

then there is no harm done by my piracy and the company is at fault for driving me to it.

Every single argument for piracy that I've heard is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst riddled with fallacy.

I agree. There is no excuse for piracy. If people want to boycott a game because of DRM, than they should do so with having nothing to do with the product at all.

 

[{EB}NuTSymPToM{EB}]

Rape and gaming are not even in the same realm. You make the most asinine responses.

The bottom line is that install limits have the *potential* to harm the paying customer. Games with install limits do not have the potential to harm pirates or really even reduce piracy at all. If anything they drive potential paying customers who's to piracy because they can't justify paying for a rental.

People aren't seeing the big picture. Game developers know that install limits don't effect piracy. Install limits effect used game sales. ALOT of people buy a game at release, beat it, and sell it for most of what they paid for it. The original customer gets the experience they wanted at a price they were comfortable with and the second-hand customer is clearly someone willing to pay for the game that did not contribute any additional sales to the creating company.

I got Crysis used for $18, STALKER used for $12, and Dawn of War for $5 used. I am someone that likes to own the retail copy but can't justify paying full price for all of the games I want to play. They are attempting to get me to buy new but I see the plan and don't like it so I don't buy their games. I want Crysis: Warhead and Farcry 2 but I won't buy them if they have an install limit. I'd prefer to get them used. Hopefully they will eventually drop the activation server and I'll buy a used copy.

It is MY RIGHT to sell what I own. I can sell anything I own to anyone willing to buy it. When I buy a game it is MINE. It is not a rental. I should be allowed to sell it if I no longer want it and someone is willing to buy it.

 

[finalgt]

What is it with you and thieves and realms? How much Oblivion did/do you play? Who uses the word "realm" that much? Good luck fighting that battle against the developers. They maintain that what they're selling you is the license to use their intellectual property, not the product of their intellectual property. It will be a court case at some point in the next few years, you can bank on it. And if you're on the losing side, good luck legally offsetting the cost of that initial game purchase.

 

[Volume]

The only EA games I ever touch are for console. Their DRM bullshit on PC's should be outlawed.

 

[jonneymendoza]

My question to the "boycotters:"

Do you mean ACTUALLY boycott, like in the sense that you refuse to purchase (and therefore play) the game? Or do you mean, pirate?

I have the distinct feeling that a lot of these 15-year-olds going on about "boycotting" are just going to be pirating it. Boys of honor in dens of thieves.

officially boycott. i wont miss out as i can simply get the console version of the game. hardly ANY pc games are exclusives now

 

[Zinn]

All you whiney little bitches act like online activation for games is worse than Hitler while you've been putting up with it for years in Microsoft and Adobe products. Talk about double standards. You people just want a convenient way to justify piracy. You all fail.

 

[Frostex]

All you whiney little bitches act like online activation for games is worse than Hitler while you've been putting up with it for years in Microsoft and Adobe products. Talk about double standards. You people just want a convenient way to justify piracy. You all fail.

No one needs to justify piracy, I don't know why this is such a popular idea. Most people doing it are aware its illegal and wrong, they do it and dont care.

 

[TheToE!]

same

^^ +1. I dont care if its Diablo 3, if it's got an install limit,no purchase.

 

[Belgain Roffles]

And once again, I'm not defending DRM. I'm just so fucking annoyed with the amount of people who have this chain of rationalization set up:

1. Copyright infringement isn't theft, because theft involves the loss of an actual product and therefore a demonstrable, tangible loss, whereas copyright infringement just eliminates a potential sale. Thus why so few pirates would actually steal a physical copy of whatever they're pirating from Best Buy, supposedly.
2. Because the loss of a potential sale can not be accurately linked to the loss of an actual sale, the two are therefore mutually exclusive.
3. If the loss of a potential sale is not the loss of an actual sale, the company is not harmed by piracy.
4. If the company is not harmed by piracy and my potential sale was not going to be converted into an actual sale because (choose one):
a. they did not release a demo
b. they have [insert form of DRM I disagree with]
c. they are releasing [name of game] [number of months between PC release and console release] months after console game
c2. and it is just a shitty console port

then there is no harm done by my piracy and the company is at fault for driving me to it.

Every single argument for piracy that I've heard is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst riddled with fallacy.

I can't say I've ever really seen anyone try to follow that line of reasoning. It jumps the shark at "point" two, as no one can possibly believe that piracy has no effect on sales. A single pirate may have no effect on sales, but piracy as a whole? Clearly no.

The real argument is less of a defense of pirates, and more a protest against the witch hunt (misdirection of blame, easy target?) against pirates and blaming them for DRM that they don't even have to deal with. There is very little (read: no) tangible benefit from heavy DRM over a light version, and of course neither affects pirates, so either developers have ulterior motives for the DRM (used sales) or are just stupid. Trying to use DRM to prevent piracy is like using a sausage to try to cure cancer, it's worthless. Both light and heavy DRM handily prevent extremely casual piracy, so there's no difference between the two there.

 

[THRESHIN]

i've been boycotting EA for the most part since they killed origin and probably won't stop until they bring them back. so in other words never buying their crap again

if they can make a truly creative game that i really enjoy then i make exceptions but those are very very rare. Mass Effect was a great game, so that i don't mind spending money on. but come on EA puts out so much crap its hard to justify buying ANYTHING from them for the most part.

 

[Raudulfr]

I just LOL at these people calling everyone thieves and pirates with their holier than thou attitude although I bet they pirate as much as the guy next door. They're just like Bush, you're either with us or against us, next thing they'll be calling us terrorists just because we like our individual freedoms, so before you can call me a pirate, well... *censored*

If I'm a pirate for boycotting limited activation games, well then let me be a fucking PROUD pirate, fools.

Sucking on EA's nuts must be a great job eh?

 

[snaggletooth]

until someone else makes an nhl game that even comes close to what ea delivers, no boycott here.

nhl and tw golf are necessities for drinking/gambling nights.

 

[damonposey]

I just LOL at these people calling everyone thieves and pirates with their holier than thou attitude although I bet they pirate as much as the guy next door. They're just like Bush, you're either with us or against us, next thing they'll be calling us terrorists just because we like our individual freedoms, so before you can call me a pirate, well... *censored*

If I'm a pirate for boycotting limited activation games, well then let me be a fucking PROUD pirate, fools.

Sucking on EA's nuts must be a great job eh?

DRM is a weapon in the war on terror, if they pull out DRM now, it WILL ALL BE FOR NOTHING!

 

[MrGuvernment]

I don't really see the big deal with DRM. How many times can a person install a game in a short period of time? Even if they do pass the limit, they can always call and get another activation.

As for what if the company stops supporting the game - a patch will most likely be released that gets rid of the activation.

the problem is things like securerom that install in your system and DO NOT uninstall NOR do they tell you what they are installing, why EA is being sued... so you dont care that X company installs X DRM and next thing you know, you cant use Daemon tools to mount your Linux ISO..... heck you cant even burn a CD you OWN for a back up cause securerom, burried in your system says NO you cant do that i am going to disable the burning software...

Yet there are not a ton of developers that are going to see big profits like Blizzard and they'll eventually pull out.

Your diablo2 comment is entertaining to me. If you were talking about the music industry instead of the gaming industry, it might be translated to something like this:

Britney spears is selling lots of records despite piracy and shes making millions, therefore piracy is irrelevant in the music market and the contemporary music scene is in great shape!

Is that what you believe?

well considering real studies have shown music sales going UP over the years.. ya i would say you can thank piracy for all the free samples = people buying more....

But it is true a good game make money none the less, orange box has been cracked to heck yet they still sells TONS of copies i am sure....because their game is good and they make it appeal and give great deals to buy it, TF2 often has free weekends that anyone can log in download and play FULL working TF2 game... i know it is online, but wonder how many sales that would get other companies with online games... give people enough to get in and try it and get hooked then buy it.

 

[orkan]

They MADE me be a pirate.

 

[Deleted member 143938]

I'm not. What's the big freakin deal with DRM..

It may not be ineffective about stopping pirating, but if you look at it from a consumer perspective, you guys are making too big a deal out of this. Why would you need to install a game more than 3 times in a short amount of time any way? And those companies always allow you to expend the charges any way, not to mention it looks like they get removed after a year or so anyway, so you can't even say "well i want to install it years later just for fun but it wont let me!"

 

[finalgt]

I just LOL at these people calling everyone thieves and pirates with their holier than thou attitude although I bet they pirate as much as the guy next door. They're just like Bush, you're either with us or against us, next thing they'll be calling us terrorists just because we like our individual freedoms, so before you can call me a pirate, well... *censored*

If I'm a pirate for boycotting limited activation games, well then let me be a fucking PROUD pirate, fools.

Sucking on EA's nuts must be a great job eh?

Once again, that's not a boycott. The only thing you maybe have to be proud of is your ability to rationalize.

 

[Thanatos.]

Im boycotting and have been since Bioshock, so far EA is out almost $300 from me. Sad really cause they are alot of great games coming out that are crippled with this SecuRom shit.

 

[Megalomaniac]

Just went over to stardocks web site, they have Space Rangers 2 on sale their, originally the game came with heavy protection, but since stardock is selling it, then it must mean that its pretty much protection free. the game is a lot of fun, has mechs, a pinball like minigame and a few other enjoyable features...

so dont buy EA buy Stardock!
(Then again, i am kinda interested in Dead Space, looks like its actually a good game)

 

[Somnambulator]

been boycotting EA-backed games since the 1st BF2 expansion came out 6 months after BF2 and they never bothered fixing major gameplay bugs. that was the last straw...

 

[Belgain Roffles]

All you whiney little bitches act like online activation for games is worse than Hitler while you've been putting up with it for years in Microsoft and Adobe products. Talk about double standards. You people just want a convenient way to justify piracy. You all fail.

Re-reading this topic, I came across this little gem. I think he's trying to convince us that someone might actually own a legitimate copy of Photoshop.

How quaint