News EA: Nobody cares about DRM

But that misses the point - if a game with DRM sells well, EA will just say 'See? Look how great our sales are thanks to DRM!'. And it doesn't hurt the industry, there are plenty of games publishers out there who agree and also refuse to put DRM on their games, Stardock is a good example of this, particularly for me as they are a company who has got more of my money than they perhaps might have if it hadn't been for secuROM (and all the EA games I didn't buy as a result) - in fact, EA losing dominance of the market as a result of this could only really be considered healthy for the games industry surely?

It's understandable that it may seem stupid to you to not buy a game you'd quite like to play, but then how else do you suggest letting EA know how you feel about DRM? If it's not hitting them in the pocket they won't do a single thing to change (except possibly find bigger ways to screw up your game with DRM).

Come back in 3-5 years, when the activation servers are down, and you can't play your games any more, or when you want to sell your game on second-hand and can't, and then see how you feel about DRM...

 

Exactly my problem, I still play many old games. I installed Kingpin off it's original disc the other day for example, I really doubt that if this required online activation in 1999, that it would still be possible to activate it today.

I have cancelled preorders upon finding out about the restrictions too - I hate the way nobody tells you this is the case when you are buying. At the end of the day it's only a game and I can live without it so I'd rather not buy.

 

he is correct, I don't care about DRM, except when I can't find a crack

 

they are talking about the 0.2% of owners who have issues... what about the consumers that didnt purchase the games at all due to it. I'm sure there are more then 0.2%.

 

Thats fair enough. I understand all the above viewpoints. Mine is a little different in that I buy a game, play it through and (usually) never play it again so i don't have same difficulties. I imagine there's probably quite a few people who do the same so DRM will not really affect those people. I doubt this acounts for the 98.8% of users as mentioned in the article but it must be quite a few.

In MY case, what the EA boss says is true and as long as their DRM doesn't cause any problems for me then I'm pretty happy.

 

I wish I was blind to what's going on in the industry and had a crap research team that misinformed me. Then maybe I'd make as much money as Riccitiello.

 

EA Boss John Riccitiello can go stick his thumb up his butt. Or, better yet, a copy of Spore. Sideways. His piece of crap company has been dead to me for years, and the one time I end up taking a chance with it I get burned again.

Maybe they should look into publishing games that are worth buying, since obviously realizing that their business model is dead and just giving up isn't a great option for them.

 

Come on apocalypse....the gaming industry needs a reboot.

 

...which reminds me I need to find a "fixed exe" before patching my "Mass Effect"

 

Heres to hoping that FarCry2 gets a steam release

 

Even with Steam, the DRM is still there. Bioshock still used it in Steam. Unless I get offered a great deal, I will never buy a game with DRM. I change out PC parts and reformat every 6 months to a year.

Spore was one of the most pirated games yet and it has the strongest DRM to date. You would think EA would see the correlation and stop.

 

Greetings!

Sadly, that is not a guarantee of no Securom present.

Riccitiello managed to lose all the good credit he gained after his first interviews as EA CEO. And then lost even more credit.

PS:
Just took a peek at his Wikipedia entry, his former job was Managing Director of Elevation Partners, a private equity firm that invests in intellectual property and media and entertainment companies.

 

You know what? From what I hear the average large gaming company executive, something like 99.8% of them, will make up statistics to make his company (and by extension himself) seem less like *******s.

 

Anything to make them look good.

 

I still don't understand why Steam is better. Yes, you can run in "offline" mode. What if you want to play TF2? Or, you know, any other multiplayer game? You're essentially down to playing online all the time, and then you're connecting to the Steam servers every damn time you want to play and asking them if it's ok.

I have no problem with Steam, (and I'm one of the users who didn't really have a problem with SecuRom because I have one computer and no intention of selling the games) especially since it gives me this great extra means of communication with people I play with. But I cannot for the life of me understand why it is better than SecuRom except for the number of installations. It's not like I can sell a game I purchased over Steam at all while you can purchase a secondhand copy of Mass Effect and just so long as the record of the old installs are deleted from their servers, you're buying it like it's new. SecuRom makes you get online to check your games once every two weeks. Steam does it every time you play.

 

I think some one should make a vid with a ton of people from youtube saying I am a gamer and I care about DRM. Sort of like the new windows add with people saying that they are pc (yea I get it if your not "politically correct" in todays world you will be executed, got to love freedom of speech. But still MS why make an add about it!? )

 

Yeah, and I'm sure a large majority of gamers don't notice metacritic scores either, but we don't see game publishers "paying no attention" to that..

It is often the cause of the vocal minority, to stand up for the rights of the largely complacent majority. Just because everyone isn't complaining doesn't mean it's not an issue that doesn't affect us all

 

I personally don't like DRM, because I hate looking for the original CD and if I scratch the disk, I might not be able to play the game anymore legally.

Amen to that

 

The last time securom style DRM would have been effective is back when piracy meant copying CDs and giving them to your mates.

EDIT
@MrMonroe: Oh dear that old argument again. The issue with securom isn't the calling home as such, but the invasive way it integrates itself into the system. Actually uninstalling it is a bitch and the last (and only) time I bought a game with securom protection there was no mention that it was being installed at all. That part may have changed, but the rest of it is still a problem.

Limited activations are a real problem if you think in the long term. I still have my original copy of SM's:Alpha Centauri installed. I bought that game when it was released in 1999. I've had 6 changes of computer in that time and several reinstalls on each. Give me 3, give me 5 it still wouldn't cover it. Of course lots of games aren't worth playing 9 years later but for the few which are worth it, do you really want that to have securom on it?

Steam is good because it gives valve a largely effective (nothings perfect) way of combating piracy and gives the users better functionality than a disk could. I can bring my games with me without lugging disks around, I can buy new games, even preload them so I can play within a minute of release. Valve is also reasonably open about the data they collect from users unlike nearly any other company that I could care to mention.

The big risk I can see is that valve and steam will not last forever. However, businesses like that rarely disappear overnight so hopefully a solution could be found before they do shut down.

 

In a survey done by me , 93% of gamers believe there should be a legal requirement to display on retail packaging what DRM restrictions are in place, 6% believed that wasn't necessary but it should be a legal requirement to put the information somewhere (i.e. on their website or something) and only 0% (lol) believed the industry is fine as it is, hiding the DRM until it installs.

As much as *we* know about it, the average joe doesn't. This means the average joe will buy DRMd products. This amounts to 'voting with your wallet'. Which means even if we *really really* hate DRM, because it's not advertised the 99.8% of gamers who don't read journalists finding out what DRM is implemented will buy the products without realising. That's what he means.

When they are instlaling 5 years down the line they will be as equally effected as the consumers who are being affected today.