The Great Lies of EA and Maxis

Marx83 wrote:TRUTH
You've got to be kidding!! EA is the MOST HATED developer! just google "hate EA"

I dunno dude. Go take a look at the Steam forums. You'll likely not find a larger Unpleasable Fanbase dedicated to hatred of a specific company than those forums, directed straight at Valve.

TRUTH
DRM is not necessary to protect sales...

Sins of a Solar Empire by stardock has sold 500,000+ (surpassing SPORE sales) units WITHOUT DRM!
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20026

Thanks to Dairuka for this lead.

Technically-speaking, SoaSE does have DRM. It's just largely non-invasive. I believe a single online activation is all that's minimally necessary, although the whole point of Stardock's approach towards DRM is "paying customers get updates; pirates will get the game, but no updates, no tech support, no consideration for future improvements, nothing."

Just a couple of nitpicks.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 10/18/2008 09:51:51

*snip*
Apparently this was wrongly understood.

@ Pyrion..... Hey bud!! Could u toss me the supporting links for that??? I'd be happy to correct a mistake if I've made one

Parvati wrote:

Pyrion wrote:*snip*

Pay no attention to him.
He is the lowest form of life present on these boards the so called Homunis Rodentia Fanboyuz.

He doesn't follow up on his posts either.

Geez, you make it sound like I pissed in your cornflakes.

Maybe I oughta.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 10/18/2008 09:51:24

Pyrion wrote:

Parvati wrote:

Pyrion wrote:*snip*

Pay no attention to him.
He is the lowest form of life present on these boards the so called Homunis Rodentia Fanboyuz.

He doesn't follow up on his posts either.

Geez, you make it sound like I pissed in your cornflakes.

Maybe I oughta.

I wasn't talking about you

I was talking about WilliWalli.

Btw, don't use the star system to express emotions

Dude, I just noticed that the language barrier has hit me again.
I understand why you took that the wrong way.
My bad. Just to be clear, I was not talking about you.

Marx83 wrote:@ Pyrion..... Hey bud!! Could u toss me the supporting links for that??? I'd be happy to correct a mistake if I've made one

Sure can.

With Galactic Civilizations II, we put no copy protection on the CD. But to get updates, users had to use their unique serial # in the box. That’s because our system is backed by TotalGaming.net’s unique SSD service (secure software delivery) which forgoes DRM and copy protection as we know it to take a more common sense (I think so anyway as a gamer) approach of just making sure you are delivering your game to the actual customer.

...

Sins of a Solar Empire is taking the same route.

It's technically DRM cuz the only way you can get updates is from Stardock, through a tool (was Stardock Central, now Stardock Impulse) that requires registration and linking to an account for the updates to occur. No valid registration, no updates. No valid registration, no tech support (they'll check). The obviousness of someone having pirated the game rises with each successive patch when it comes to forum posts cuz usually a complaint will be issued over something that's since been fixed in a patch. Why would anyone with an internet connection be reluctant to update their game?

@Pyrion, please check your PM cause I feel bad about it.

Parvati wrote:I wasn't talking about you
I was talking about WilliWalli.

Btw, don't use the star system to express emotions

Dude, I just noticed that the language barrier has hit me again.
I understand why you took that the wrong way.
My bad. Just to be clear, I was not talking about you.

Yeah, you should've quoted him in the context of quoting me. Barring that, it looked like you were telling everyone else to ignore me. Not an unreasonable suggestion, but there's gotta be more to it.

Pyrion wrote:

Yeah, you should've quoted him in the context of quoting me. Barring that, it looked like you were telling everyone else to ignore me. Not an unreasonable suggestion, but there's gotta be more to it.

Yea i noticed to late that i fumbled up with the quotes

I was in no way suggestion you should be ignored.
Far from it even. You seem to talk with reason and intelligence.
But I'll say it again. The poster I was talking about was the bad one

OP updated

Thanks Pyrion

A slightly better source for citing my corrections, as it also directly relates to Spore and the "Gamers' Bill of Rights."

Another thing, Impulse doesn't have limitations on number of simultaneous activations. Just did a Google search with the parameters "site:forums.galciv2.com install multiple computers" and found this gem:

Here's the basic question that every publisher/gamer/developer could ask: By requiring the CD to be in the drive to play a game, even assuming that protection unbreakable, do you increase your sales?

I ask that because many gamers who are on the fence on a given title won't purchase a game if it requires them to treat their CD like a dongle key. Why? Because let's face it, we lose our CDs eventually. Or we damage them. And so what happens is that people who are on the fence on a given title simply choose not to buy the game.

By not having any CD copy protection, people who are on the fence about our game can see that it's only $40 and once it's installed on their machines (plural) they don't have to fuss with the CD anymore. And we do have a type of copy protection -- free updates for customers.

Making it kinda obvious, but I'm a huge Stardock fan, so any chance I get to pimp their digital distribution system, I take. Even if it looks like astroturfing. I can't help myself.

grrr

OP updated..... again

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 10/18/2008 10:39:47

Pyrion wrote:

Marx83 wrote:
With Galactic Civilizations II, we put no copy protection on the CD. But to get updates, users had to use their unique serial # in the box. That’s because our system is backed by TotalGaming.net’s unique SSD service (secure software delivery) which forgoes DRM and copy protection as we know it to take a more common sense (I think so anyway as a gamer) approach of just making sure you are delivering your game to the actual customer.

...

Sins of a Solar Empire is taking the same route.

It's technically DRM cuz the only way you can get updates is from Stardock, through a tool (was Stardock Central, now Stardock Impulse) that requires registration and linking to an account for the updates to occur. No valid registration, no updates. No valid registration, no tech support (they'll check). The obviousness of someone having pirated the game rises with each successive patch when it comes to forum posts cuz usually a complaint will be issued over something that's since been fixed in a patch. Why would anyone with an internet connection be reluctant to update their game?

You might consider it DRM, but its not SecuROM. It is very clear the way they verify it, and they dont install hidden programs along with your game. And I am very reluctant to update SPORE, because the last patch screwed my game.

"Stepping aside from the whole issue of DRM, people need to recognize that every BitTorrent download doesn’t represent a successful copy of a game, let alone a lost sale," ~ Mariam Sughayer of EA's corporate communications department

If a BitTorrent download isnt a lost sale (here I agree) then why is the DRM there?

managed to unquote myself, after a bunch of edits

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 10/18/2008 10:42:34

*edited* <--- Bad Idea

If you click on the link provided as "truth" to that lie of EA's, you'll see that EA was full of SPORE.

deity wrote:You might consider it DRM, but its not SecuROM. It is very clear the way they verify it, and they dont install hidden programs along with your game. And I am very reluctant to update SPORE, because the last patch screwed my game.

I consider it DRM because, by definition, it's DRM. It's DRM in much the same way that the 10NES chip in American NES game cartridges is DRM (making it one of the oldest ones in the book). No, it's not SecuROM, but are we complaining about DRM in general or just complaining about SecuROM specifically?

I have no problem with DRM if it's largely invisible to the user. If EA disabled the activation limitations, then I'd have no problem with SecuROM. Although I still don't like their attitude towards Sysinternals Process Explorer, but that's something I can live with.