Beware of BioWare!

[AstralWanderer]

Since passions seemed to be running high in this thread (including mine, apologies to anyone offended!) I thought it best to take a break. However there have been some interesting follow ups.

First, a thoughtful discussion at Twenty-Sided on Authorization Servers pointing out the problems inherent with online activation when the publisher goes offline. Another related discussion at Bit-Tech includes contact information for Bioware/EA (for those wishing to complain directly) and a mention of this Online Petition for removing DRM from Mass Effect and Spore.

Two more points about online activation are worth noting - the first is that it allows the publisher to change the rules. Instead of a periodic connection they could instead require you to run a separate "validation" program (think Windows Genuine Advantage) that scans your system for anything suspicious (this could include cracks, software without a recognised legitimate key or even certain security software). They could choose to relax or tighten the activation criteria (e.g. lock it to one IP address). They could charge users extra for further activations as Stardock do with resold software - see their Knowledgebase Article (site down at time of posting) and forum discussion thread. A publisher could even try to "monetise" activation of older games (with nothing to lose from sales boycotts) by tying them in with adware or other marketing. This isn't unique to games though - any activation system (e.g. ITunes, PlaysForSure) gives distributors a similar ability to unilaterally change the conditions of use and enforce them.

The second is that there is no reason to expect it to cut piracy (activation code is unlikely to be harder to remove than CD checks) so the only benefit is if legitimate users can be made to pay more. Stardock's policy on resold software is a good indicator here - if publishers can kill off (or at least profit from) second-hand sales, then that may justify this type of DRM in their eyes (from the balance sheet perspective, a legal second-hand buyer is no different from a pirate). However it also could prepare the way for the Holy Grail of many software publishers - games rental. No longer would you be able to buy a game, but would have to pay a monthly fee regardless of whether the publisher did anything to earn it. While some might argue that this would allow for continued support and updates, an equally likely scenario is of older games being treated as cash cows with users fed on hollow promises (Microsoft's Software Assurance program being one such example).

Originally Posted by Luciel

I haven´t had any issues with object desktop, galciv2 or sins of a solar empire : / pretty straightforward, maybe you were just unlucky?

There have been a number of "activation problem" threads on Stardock's own forums so the process isn't (and can't really be expected to be) error free. In my case, it took three weeks (and four attempts by Stardock support) to get a working key for GalCiv2 (I downloaded the crack from GCW since to avoid any recurrence). Even if things work swimmingly to start with though, the main concern should be about the future - the company can change the rules as they please.

While Stardock's system may be lighter than most (check only on install, key can be retained for future use on the same machine) it is the lack of transparency that irritates me most. This requirement was not made clear when GalCiv2 was launched, no mention of it is made in the packaging or manual and no details have been given about what Stardock considers a "different machine". Would changing a processor, hard disk or network card require subsequent reactivation? Are a certain number of changes allowed in a specific time frame and if so, how many and when?

Microsoft have made such details available on Windows XP activation (a detailed description is given here) but it is ultimately self-defeating for publishers to expect legitimate customers to pay to deal with this while pirates continue to get away scot free.