Malleus on 26/10/2008 at 00:59
I found this link on another forum in a topic debating copy protection methods. I thought it was interesting and relevant, especialy with all the not-so-user-friendly copy protection methods around in the video game industry these days. It's a 40 minute long presentation, I'll quote a summary below.
(
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6483543718966313073&hl=en)
Quote:
Matt Mason's keynote on The Pirate's Dilemma, his book on how to compete with piracy, filmed at The Medici Summit, March 3rd 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona. Mason discusses why piracy can be an opportunity as well as a threat, how pirates innovate outside of the marketplace and how legitimate businesses can respond. Using examples from music, fashion, software and the video game industry (to name just a few of the topics covered), Mason makes the case that it is possible to beat pirates offering the same products for free, and that when pirates are adding value to society in some way, society will get behind them, at which point the only way companies can beat them is by compete with them in the marketplace.
TheOutrider on 26/10/2008 at 18:34
So how exactly are modern copy protection measures "not-so-user-friendly"? Codewheels and manual lookups are user unfriendly. A copy protection mechanism that, like most modern systems, attempts to work as transparently as possible makes more efforts to be end user friendly than either of those.
Malleus on 26/10/2008 at 18:42
Maybe it wasn't the best choice of words, but there are a lot of people who have problems with DRMs going as far as not buying something because of it, and complaining that one who buys the game have more hassle with it then one who pirates it. Online activations, limited installs and such.
TheOutrider on 26/10/2008 at 18:57
My point stands nonetheless - privacy concerns aside, even the type of copy protection applied in Bioshock is designed to be as transparent as possible. Install the game, your computer gets authenticated to play it. Uninstall it, you get one install back. To stay with the example:
"But it can only be installed on three computers at the same time!"
How many people even have more than three computers capable of running Bioshock? And how many of them want to have it installed on all of them at the same time?
"But what happens when the auth servers are shut down in ten years and people want to play it?"
How many games that are ten years old do people play these days, and how many of them don't work for issues that are not related to copy protection? Even so, if a game has any kind of copy protection - be it a codewheel or online authentication - there will be cracks for it, so if people genuinely want to replay one of these games in ten years and it actually even starts, they can always go and crack it. If the developer doesn't even release an official patch that removes the auth requirement anyway.
"But why should a single player game require an internet connection?!"
People who've got a computer that can run modern games are fairly likely to also have an always-on broadband connection. What difference does it make whether or not that connection is used for a second or two while the game starts up or not?
It is, of course, also a matter of principle, but as I said - aside from the potential privacy issues, I personally have few problems with this kind of mechanism. Even less so because if a game has online activation, that's one less reason for it to also verify the disc and thus one more step towards removing the stupid requirement of having the disc in the drive to play, and because once developers catch on they will also realise that it means games can offer to automatically patch and do so.
Myagi on 26/10/2008 at 19:21
Quote Posted by TheOutrider
"But what happens when the auth servers are shut down in ten years and people want to play it?"
How many games that are ten years old do people play these days, and how many of them don't work for issues that are not related to copy protection?
kinda flawed reasoning
a) bad example since the DRM schemes of today (online activation/authorization, limited installs etc.) weren't used 10 years ago
b) you picked the absolutely worst forum on the internet to make a point that people don't play 10+ year old games
That's the point, that even if the DRM types used back then might not be free of issues, at least we can stilll play those games, whether the companies still exist or not, whether we have an internet connection available or not. You owned your copy in the same way you own a dvd movie or music cd, you don't have to ask a third party's permission to install and/or play.
The alternative to the bend-over-and-pick-up-the-soap DRMs is not a codewheel or some other ancient stuff. I doubt most complainers, allthough they'd be happy with no DRM at all, mean that that is the only alternative, they just want something moderate where you still own your copy and the protection software doesn't mess with the computer.
The_Raven on 26/10/2008 at 22:21
Quote Posted by TheOutrider
Even less so because if a game has online activation, that's one less reason for it to also verify the disc and thus one more step towards removing the stupid requirement of having the disc in the drive to play, and because once developers catch on they will also realise that it means games can offer to automatically patch and do so.
You do realize that the original Sierra/Won.net version of Half-Life had a auto-patcher, right? I also hate it when update systems for my applications are completely automated, meaning that I can't roll back patches if I start experiencing problems. Also, can you find me a crack for Roger Rabbit: Hare Raising Havoc? I still have my disks, but I've lost my code wheel.
Zygoptera on 26/10/2008 at 22:33
Quote Posted by TheOutrider
My point stands nonetheless - privacy concerns aside, even the type of copy protection applied in Bioshock is designed to be as transparent as possible. Install the game, your computer gets authenticated to play it. Uninstall it, you get one install back.
For most of the titles (eg all the EA titles and Bioshock, as produced) with the limited install DRM you
do not get a 'refund' when uninstalling. In fact the only two I know have that feature default enabled are FarCry2 and Sacred2. Plus, of course, the fact that unspecified hardware changes (including something as simple as plugging in an external HD, of which I have no less than four which get swapped around frequently) trigger use of another token
without revoking the last.
Further, the transparency is
less than the old CD/DVD check standard. You potentially have to log on, let game through firewall, find and enter serial (and hope that it actually works- see FC2), if the server is responding (see Bioshock where the servers were down for, at times, days), spend time waiting for the files to download and whatever it is they take from your hard drive to upload, then hope that SecuROM won't hate your DVD drive and or other software you have installed or have been using previously. The last one is a problem for standard cd checks too (the only one on that list which is), but the new ring 0 implementation of SecuROM makes it potentially a lot worse.
Personally I couldn't care less about having to have a CD in the drive to play- if I want to listen to a CD I need that in the CD player, if I want to watch a DVD I need that in the player (though I don't need to worry about either bricking because I've used too many different players to play them or they're too old to be supported any more)- and if it seriously bothers me, usually because of the truly horrible noise some cd checks cause my dvd drive to emit, then I know how to fix that problem quickly and simply.
redrain85 on 26/10/2008 at 22:40
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
You potentially have to log on, let game through firewall, find and enter serial (and hope that it actually works- see FC2), if the server is responding (see Bioshock where the servers were down for, at times, days)
Far Cry 2 had the same problem, as Half-Life 2 and Bioshock before it. The servers couldn't handle the load of activations on the first day. There were quite a few (and rightfully so) upset people. They had to wait a day in order to play their copy of the game, because they needed permission. Whee.
Fringe on 26/10/2008 at 23:08
Quote Posted by Myagi
b) you picked the absolutely worst forum on the internet to make a point that people don't play 10+ year old games
Let me just emphasize--
oh god was that the wrong thing to say on this message board of all message boards. Probably seventy percent of my gaming diet comes from games more than seven years old. Many made by companies that no longer exist.
You don't have to look around very far to find people who would've gone absolutely apeshit/sworn off gaming forever if System Shock 2 and the Thief series stopped functioning when LGS went out of business.
ercles on 26/10/2008 at 23:51
Quote Posted by TheOutrider
People who've got a computer that can run modern games are fairly likely to also have an always-on broadband connection. What difference does it make whether or not that connection is used for a second or two while the game starts up or not?
I for one don't, and I think it's a ridiculous assumption. Down here in Australia there are plenty of spots in captial cities where broadband isn't even offered as the infrastructure hasn't caught up. This is obviously not the fault of the developer, but it shouldn't just be an assumption that everyone has good access to high speed internet when they just want to play on their own.
