I also don't like the activation StarDock uses. But at least that one is for patches only. Patches the game works perfectly well without and that are a free bonus for customers. Nobody is required to download them if he doesn't want to. So while not being a big fan of this form of activation I can live with it. It's quite different with the EA activation which is a lot more restrictive.

The difference is Stardock doesn't require you to register online, whereas this new CP scheme does.

MegaVolt: if the tech support agents look like that, who cares?

Valid point. However, it is telefon tech support and not video tech support so we will never know

The problem with this copy protection personally speaking is that:

1. Single Player, playing while online leaves you exposed and vulnerable. You have to have AV running.

Personally, I always play offline with AV off. This always improves performance and gives me peace of mind.

1 activation via online is fair and perfectly unobstrusive.

One every 10 days - no thanks.

2. I bought the game, I paid for it legitimately. Screw your checks every 10 days so I may download a crack that removes this.

If I go and buy a car, I don't want some guy calling every 10 days to check my documents to make sure I didn't steal it do I?

Screw this type of copy protection.

I play fair, I don't steal and it makes me consider getting a crack to remove this check.

What does that say?

I said it once and I will say it again. If it is active DRM that makes changes to your hardware or requires the an internet connection to play the game, you should not buy anything from that company! Buying their products is telling them that their over the top and abusive treatment of their customers is OK and that you agree their entire consumer base is a bunch of thieves.

We all have 3 options when it comes to companies that employ drastic DRM measures.

1. Buy the game and show that you approve of their business practices and customer support.

2. Boycott the company, showing them that their practices are not acceptable. Hopefully they will either go out of business or at least change their practices when they start getting hungry.

3. Pirate games from companies that employ extreme DRM measures. While I don't personally endorse doing this, it is an eat your cake and have it too scenario.

While I don't like DRM, I can understand and live with measures such as registering for updates, CD keys, or having the CD in the drive. I can't live with anything that assumes I am going to steal it, when I bought it. You should not be punished for buying a product. Companies have a need to protect their interest. As consumers you also need to protect your interest. Complaining about something on the internet, in front of businesses, on the radio, or on TV will not change any companies practices. The only way you can affect change in the business world is with YOUR money.

Bottom line is purchasing from companies such as EA is not only stupid and irresponsible, you are only asking for more of the same.

Well all the commotion and anger over this stupid DRM has caused Bioware and EA to slightly back off already.

http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=629059&forum=125
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/10/bioware-drops-10-day-valdiation-from-mass-effect-pc/

It is atleast better then having to constantly authenticate the game but still there are a number of issues such as only being able to install the game on 3 different computers and also the fact that you still have to validate the game online which makes it impossible to play on an offline computer still.

The games only require you to register once. The game can be played without a disc in the drive. The only time you have to go online and be verified again is when downloading new content. Starting to sound familiar? As far as *only* being able to install on three computers, this is from the GalCiv EULA: YOU MAY:
1. Install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE on a single computer.
2. Install a second copy of the SOFTWARE on a second computer only if you are the main user of this computer (home computer or laptop for example).

So EA took a good long look at the Stardock business model, and decided to imitate it, because, and I quote: "it works". Now they couldn't just come out with this policy straight away, because people would say, and rightly so, that they are just copying the Stardock way of doing things, and that just wouldn't do.

So...they announce a completely over the top policy (which I don't believe they ever intended to implement) and create a firestorm of criticism, lighting up every forum and blog, creating an enormous amount of free press. They then announce that they are 'backing down' because they luuuv us sooo muuuch. *sniff*

What do they think we are? Stupid? Evidently so.

At first, I was just dissapointed. Now I'm mad. I don't like being manipulated.

I don't care so much about ME, but I was planning on buying Spore. Then I wasn't. Now, who knows. It seems I have a decision to make. Can I support a company who so obviously thinks so little of me?

Mistralok, Stardock does not require you to register the game in order to play it. That is the difference. You are only required to register to get free and frequent updates, which due to the frequency of updates from Stardock makes registering worth the hassle. Most companies do not update as frequently as Stardock. Even with the frequent updates Stardock provides not everyone wishes to register or install Stardock Central. This does not keep them from playing the game, only from playing a fully updated and patched version.

Also Stardock does not restrict how many computers you install your games on, or how many times you download and install the games. They only monitor for obvious things such as downloading from IP addresses in multiple locations at the same time or other things that demonstrate access sharing. Even if you are caught doing things like sharing your registration or if it was stolen, you can still play the game, you just won't be able to get updates without paying again. Even if you are a repeat offender and get black listed from registering, you can still keep playing the game.

I hope I have clearly pointed out the differences between the Stardock model and what is being discussed here. It may sound similar, but if you have to register even one time just to play the game it is NOT the same. Stardock's model DOES NOT restrict fair and legal use of it's products nor does it punish it's customers to protect it's corporate interest.

It looks like Penny Arcade did a comic on this subject, and the accompanying news post is interesting. Especially this bit at the end:



Now, he doesn't come out and say it, but I wonder if this means they pulled all the Mass Effect ads because of this? I certainly don't see any on the site now. In fact, they had a big Sins ad when I was reading this.

HogWash! ..... thats straight out of the marketing/PR manual. They have let the genie out of the bottle, and it will be a long time before it gets put back in.



Translated means we got caught with our hands in the Till .... if they were so concerned they would have market tested for a response before going out with such a potentially devisive system. Any sane individual running a large Business would tread carefully in a similar scenario, the fact that they didnt speaks volumes for motivations.

The correct response should have been "We made an error, and our loyal fans let us know about that in no uncertain terms. Lesson learnt, we are going back to the drawing board on this one, and will let you know the outcome in a few days. Meanwhile, a big thank you to our customers for rattling our cage on this one, we do listen to you, and when we get it wrong, we'll say so, and put it right." Not the marketing hogwash he put out ....

If the 10 day activation was essential to the process why have they so quickly let it go? My guess is two unspoken reasons, first they still want the solid marketing database this will bring, second and equally likely - they are so divorced from the realities of their customers they really thought no one would mind .....

I want to deal with someone who I can at the very least half-trust, not someone who backs down immediately on what was previously stated as critical actions, then to see them glibly dump the "critical principles" on first sign of plummeting Sales.

I'm the first to agree that business is there to make a dollar, no problem with that - however you make the best dollars by looking after your customers, not by the saga that was just played out. Trust and Motivation are as big if not bigger part of any Sale, as is content and quality of the item or service. The latter may well be good, but the former is decidedly lacking in my view, so its still a no for me.

Regards
Zy

What's the point of requiring more authentication checks after it's been installed? This method has been cracked before..

I'm wondering if BioWare didn't just do an end run around EA. Think about it: how many game companies that use DRM in their games come out before release and tell you exactly how it's going to work?

I think it's entirely possible that EA mandated that SecuROM was going to be in the game, BioWare got pissed about it because they didn't want to use this iteration of it, and they released the details knowing full well it was going to stir up a hornet's nest.

Of course they're only spewing out what's in the corporate manual though. They're owned by EA now, so they still have to toe the party line.

Haha! The more things like this come out, the more im convinced there are people in the copy protection industry trying to bring it down from within!

EA should rot in hell