Why online activation sucks

[DABhand]

Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

This very point is covered in extensive detail in the Authorization Servers article - if a company goes bust, users have no guarantee of anything. And for a utility like Daemon Tools (which can affect a user's ability to run dozens of other games), being confident that it will continue to work 2, 5 or 10 years into the future is more important than with a single game.

Shamus Young whoever he is, is talking about what Tippex said "what if's", what if the publisher goes bust? what if the developer goes bust? what if what if what if.

And then this massive where is the coding, poor shamus does not know the difference between developer and publisher. Either way they will keep all data always and of course backups.

And where is StarForce now? Largely dead and buried, due in no small part to the consumer boycott. Online activation may avoid the need for a media check (with some exceptions as you note) but you are then continually dependent on the developer/publisher continuing to support (ho ho) the game and not change their activation policy to disadvantage users further.

Here is what I know about SF, when it first arrived it was good nobody had problems, until some weird people possibly warez users who could not steal the game complained it ruined hardware, it did this it did that. Then the massives started to do the same complaining. Did it ever destroy hardware, did anyone win the challenge they set to show it does? nope. And im sure others have had no problems with it either. Only a select few which is understandable due to hardware combinations, the same can be said for software and games also.

Its about as old as the excuses used by warez users, the masses adopted them also to excuse their thefts.

They changed their conditions of use when they implemented that charge. Their online activation system means this change is enforced. It restricts your ability to sell (or buy) Stardock's products second-hand (which in some countries is considered a consumer right) and it raises the possibility of users being unfairly charged if Stardock make a mistake and think their software has been resold.

When you link url's do read them, as said Software is licensed you did not buy the rights to the software, only the rights to use it. And the softman case is a one off.

It was a volunteer moderator of long standing in their forums. Do you consider it plausible (or even possible) that he would have made such a policy statement without clearing it with EA first? Someone senior at EA would have had to OK it and their ability (and willingness) to disable products that people had paid for is what should be of concern.

Ahh you see it was a VOLUNTEER moderator, not an EA employee, I could be a moderator here and laugh my head off and say "YES WAREZ IS ALLOWED" and without admin say so, does that mean its the admins fault? no, I would get a royal kick in the nuts but that shows you how easy it is. Because that person said something doesnt mean he got the nod of approval from EA at all.

Because their policies show contempt for their paying customers - leaving them with crippled products that are inferior to warez.

Nonsense, they are protecting their investments by making sure nobody can freely give copies of the game around for free to their friends or of course sell it.

The only crippling is the fact people are stealing games and it will force publishers and developers to look at the console market. All in all its not their faults but the warez users, and it always has.

This isn't about stopping piracy - it's about extracting more money from legitimate purchasers (killing the second-hand market, forcing a move to digital distribution and controlled pricing, etc). The more people that accept such measures, the more effective this strategy will be (and the greater the likely costs long-term).

Of course it is about stopping piracy, once upon a time there was games that had very little or no protections and they were pirated/copied freely. Then came protections and costs due to publishers having to pay the authors of the protections to protect their stock, also costs cover potential loses due to piracy. Again blame the warez users not the companies.

Except that there are several conditions that prevent people from being able to "reclaim" unused installations (hard disk failure, any snafu requiring a Windows re-install, network problems during the uninstall, etc).

The key thing for any "anti-piracy" measure is that paying customers should not have to worry about it. The problems with online activation, while different from media checks, have the same long-term impact of reducing the lifespan of software that should otherwise be usable for decades to come.

The only problem for people regaining their limited activations is the possibility that they did something bad, installed on various computers at one time, shared the game with others.

Just because they had to reinstall windows etc, people who followed the TOS do NOT get reprimanded, and myself have been able to get activations again for a couple of games since I like to reinstall windows every now and again to keep a fresh system.

And as said, no game is guarenteed to work for ever due to hardware in the future. And to further emphasise you do not own the data on the media only the right to use it.

[Joe Forster/STA]

Please, don't show the same blindness as publishers do. (Although you're not doing it because of maliciousness.) I believe you if you say you haven't run into major problems with copy protected stuff but don't think that this also means that nobody else had any either: your environment is just too small compared to the whole world and your personal experience cannot and should not be extrapolated to the status of the whole gaming business. (If you're paranoid enough: there are things you know you don't know.)

Copy protection is getting more intrusive, abusive and tries to narrow your rights more and more, which is what DRM, DMCA, RIAA, TCP and whaddafuck else is about. Control, control, more control... oh, and a bit of control, too. (You may not even chiptune your car legally although you're free to crash your car, if you like. Uhm, you got the complete ownership for the car but not the rights for reverse-engineering, duplicating or modifying the onboard software in your own car?!)

Piracy is just a good excuse for tweaking the numbers into whatever is preferred and hiding the real reasons: greed, incompetence and major lack of quality control. (On a side note, the Budapest Transport Company is blaming "free riders" - people who ride without a valid ticket or pass - for their awful financial situation. The truth, however, is that only a third of their income is supposed to be paid by their customers - that is, the ones who do pay: the vast majority -, the other two third comes from the city of Budapest and the state of Hungary. Unfortunately, the council of Budapest refused to pay their third. Who's the real culprit then?)

No wonder people are turning over to free software. You don't own it but nobody else does either => effectively, everybody owns it (a little bit). Ahhh, communism in the working, how wonderful!

Originally Posted by DABhand

no game is guarenteed to work for ever due to hardware in the future.

Oh, but they are. That's what emulators are for.

Originally Posted by DABhand

And to further emphasise you do not own the data on the media only the right to use it.

Which slows down development just like patents do. With free software, you're not left alone, without any chance for help, if the original developer has abandoned the project: feel free to continue, fix it, hack it, improve it - or pay a competent developer to do it for you, if you're unable to do it yourself.

[AstralWanderer]

Originally Posted by Muji-FightR

I wouldn't pay for mere maintenance if I didn't see any improvements worth being paid for.
And at the moment, Steam is doing little to nothing to actually enhance the user experience or provide userdefined content.

For what it's worth, I doubt Valve are going to charge maintenance fees anytime soon (as long as they see a steady inflow of new signups) but once their user base stops growing, the only way they will be able to continue expanding is by maximising revenue from existing customers. At that point, any negative PR would be almost irrelevant since they would have their customers over a barrel.

Originally Posted by Muji-FightR

On the other hand, I haven't had any problem so far activation any of the games I've recently purchased.
What I usually do is just copy over the crack before it asks me to activate.

My single experience with online DRM was with Stardock's Galactic Civilizations 2 (initially DRM-free, later patches added online activation). I wanted to activate via email (to ensure that I could keep the keyfile for later use) and it took three weeks (and 4 attempts by Stardock support) before I could play a game I purchased (since, of course, the patch didn't provide the option of "play the old version without activation").

Needless to say, I applied a crack thereafter, but aside from the "steelbox" it came in, I consider GalCiv2 to be rather a mediocre game (Space Empires V, whose CD is DRM-free, is a better 4X game IMHO though its AI is mediocre without mods).

Originally Posted by DABhand

Shamus Young whoever he is, is talking about what Tippex said "what if's", what if the publisher goes bust? what if the developer goes bust? what if what if what if.

The main point against online activation is that products you purchase are vulnerable to such "what ifs". With DRM-free products, the only "what-if" is your ability to preserve the original media.

Originally Posted by DABhand

And then this massive where is the coding, poor shamus does not know the difference between developer and publisher. Either way they will keep all data always and of course backups.

Not only does he show considerable technical and legal knowledge, but also good industry experience. Even if backups are available (and few businesses will keep backups of everything - especially obsolete data or products) there is still the issue of needing the corresponding versions of development tools and third party components (e.g. Bink video, Miles sound) in order to recompile a "deactivated" copy of a game.

Yes, a hacker/cracker can patch without such aids, but developers/publishers are going to want to go the proper route to avoid bugs or quality assurance issues - mistakes can cost them dearly in having to provide more technical support.

Originally Posted by DABhand

Here is what I know about SF, when it first arrived it was good nobody had problems...

Media checks cause problems for every legitimate owner, for the reasons listed in the PC Games FAQ. Starforce (and now SecuROM) certainly did get more obnoxious over time (refusing to work on certain types of CD/DVD drives, refusing to work with certain software present, etc) which, to me, suggests that we should expect the same of online activation systems unless (and until) enough users boycott games using them.

Originally Posted by DABhand

...did anyone win the challenge they set to show it does?

Given that Protection Technology set the terms of that challenge very precisely (you had to fly to their offices in Moscow at your own expense, you had to demonstrate and replicate the problem on one of their PCs) the lack of entrants shouldn't be a surprise, and shouldn't be taken as a vindication of their product either.

Originally Posted by DABhand

Its about as old as the excuses used by warez users, the masses adopted them also to excuse their thefts.

At this point, I have to ask you, do you actually buy games yourself? For a long-term poster, you seem surprisingly ignorant of the problems legitimate customers encounter due to DRM. Even those who don't encounter technical issues have the problem of media wear-and-tear (CD scratching, etc) causing them to lose access to the products they paid for.

Originally Posted by DABhand

When you link url's do read them, as said Software is licensed you did not buy the rights to the software, only the rights to use it.

That is certainly what publishers want you to believe since it reduces their legal liability. That does not excuse them from blocking basic consumer rights however, and those who accept this type of treatment are simply setting themselves up for more abuse in the future.

This is why it is increasingly important for gamers to consider the implications of online activation - it allows publishers to rewrite EULAs at will ("By clicking Agree you accept these changes, by clicking Disagree you disable everything you purchased from us - enjoy the ride sucker!"). Blindly accepting whatever publishers deliver is not only naive, but harmful to gamers generally.

Originally Posted by DABhand

Ahh you see it was a VOLUNTEER moderator, not an EA employee...

You think a volunteer moderator would have access to EA's customer database, let alone the ability to change it? Implementing the policy of banning EA accounts would require the agreement of EA themselves - this should be obvious.

Originally Posted by DABhand

Nonsense, they are protecting their investments by making sure nobody can freely give copies of the game around for free to their friends or of course sell it.

Except it doesn't work and harms/inconveniences the people on whom the gaming industry relies on most - the paying customer. It is more comparable to the unskippable copyright notices on DVDs which have nothing but an annoyance factor.

Indeed it can harm publishers financially too in terms of greater support costs, typically their biggest expense, due to the number of users encountering activation problems.

Originally Posted by DABhand

The only crippling is the fact people are stealing games and it will force publishers and developers to look at the console market. All in all its not their faults but the warez users, and it always has.

Personally, I hope that major publishers like EA, 2K and Ubisoft do sod off and go console exclusive. I don't play console games (due to cost, quality and control issues) so I won't be affected by their DRM antics there and it would allow independent publishers more room to expand into the PC market.

Originally Posted by DABhand

Of course it is about stopping piracy, once upon a time there was games that had very little or no protections and they were pirated/copied freely.

This hasn't been the case since the late '70s/early '80s. Copy protection has been present since and has caused problems for legitimate users for as long (not least, since the 5.25" floppy disk media most commonly used then needed backing up more). In addition, DRM-light/free games have sold well like Galactic Civilizations 2 (though Stardock put online DRM in via subsequent updates) and Sins of a Solar Empire.

Real "warez" users either can't or won't (with few exceptions) buy games so have minimal real impact on gaming sales.

Originally Posted by DABhand

The only problem for people regaining their limited activations is the possibility that they did something bad, installed on various computers at one time, shared the game with others.

Hard disks fail, Windows gets corrupted, networks have periodic outages. These should be obvious points to anyone with significant computing experience.

Originally Posted by DABhand

...and myself have been able to get activations again for a couple of games since I like to reinstall windows every now and again to keep a fresh system.

So in other words, you've fallen foul of the activation limits ("did something bad") and had to rely on the goodwill of a publisher (who just as easily could have told you to get stuffed and buy another copy) in order to keep your investment. And you still fail to see the problems with this system?

Originally Posted by DABhand

And as said, no game is guarenteed to work for ever due to hardware in the future. And to further emphasise you do not own the data on the media only the right to use it.

I have games purchased more than 10 years ago that still run under Windows. I have older games that run under DosBox. Had these used online activation, I would not be able to enjoy them and relive happy memories today.

Originally Posted by Joe Forster/STA

...they're the ones making by far the greater profit. Obviously, they'll do anything to keep themselves alive...

To be fair, some major publishers are losing money and we only see the successes - those games that get finished, or at least released. There are doubtless many others that don't make it that far (canned due to costs, politics, IP problems, etc) which mean money lost - plus a few that really shouldn't have been released (Euro Truck Simulator anyone?).

Note to mods: I'd agree that the DRM discussion should be hived off since it is now way OT from the thread title.

[Joe Forster/STA]

(Thread split.)

Sorry, I'm not an Amstrad CPC user; I was talking about the easter egg in the DOS version of Prehistorik 2...

Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

At this point, I have to ask you, do you actually buy games yourself? For a long-term poster, you seem surprisingly ignorant of the problems legitimate customers encounter due to DRM.

If I remember correctly, DABhand works in a shop that sells computer games. Of course, his goal is to sell more and more games, no matter what annoying "features" they have, and that attitude also shows on this forum.

Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

To be fair, some major publishers are losing money and we only see the successes - those games that get finished, or at least released.

That's capitalism: some make it, some don't; some companies ride the waves of success for a long time, some don't. Those that went under enjoyed the advantages of the system for a while but later died because of the disadvantages. Why be surprised? The advantages and disadvantages of the system are one and the same!

[AstralWanderer]

Originally Posted by Joe Forster/STA

If I remember correctly, DABhand works in a shop that sells computer games.

That could explain a lot. I can see the BestBuy ethos and dedication to customer service shine through. More seriously though, computer games shops are going to be big losers from digital distribution (and online activation will both cost sales and increase returns) so you'd think he'd wise up a little.

Originally Posted by Joe Forster/STA

That's capitalism: some make it, some don't; some companies ride the waves of success for a long time, some don't.

Agreed - I just wanted to point out that we, as customers, only see part of the picture with regard to what publishers do and what expenses they incur.

[DABhand]

Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

That could explain a lot. I can see the BestBuy ethos and dedication to customer service shine through. More seriously though, computer games shops are going to be big losers from digital distribution (and online activation will both cost sales and increase returns) so you'd think he'd wise up a little.Agreed - I just wanted to point out that we, as customers, only see part of the picture with regard to what publishers do and what expenses they incur.

I own a shop, that sells games and hardware, and I repair also.