EA takes the cake and eats it too

Prozak · 2008-05-13T16:42:22

* Techdirt: EA To Use Controversial Internet-Required DRM On New Games: Quote:..."PC Gamers are in an uproar over a new copy protection system announced by Electronic Arts for use on their upcoming titles. The PC-port of the successful Xbox title Mass Effect, and the eagerly awaited Will Wright title Spore will be two of the higher profile games to use this new system. The new system is the latest iteration of the SecuROM protection, which has caused problems in the past over technical issues with several popular titles. The version of SecuROM that shipped with Bioshock was even accused (but never proven) of installing a root-kit on users PCs. This new version is causing controversy due to an online verification system connected to its CD key. The system requires a connection to the internet during installation to check the CD key is valid, and then registers the key with the users' computer. After this the game will try to re-check the CD key every 5-10 days to ensure it hasn't since been found posted on a forum, or used in some form of piracy. If the game can't verify the key within this period it will continue to try for a further 10 days, after which it will stop working until the key is checked. The protection will also only allow the game to be installed three times. A lot of gamers consider this intrusive and inconvenient, and that the publishers are effectively assuming their customers are pirates and looking over their shoulders every 10 days to check. Other concerns have been raised over users who don't play with machines permanently connected to the internet (such as laptops), or how the system will work in regards to resale. A comprehensive help-line has been promised to help people deal with these issues and the developers have mentioned the new system will remove the need for a DVD to run the game, but these potential problems combined with SecuROM's past have made some call for a boycott of the titles and others to declare an intention to pirate the game out of spite." Seems like more short-term thinking. If the effort is to reduce "piracy" it won't work. People will figure out other ways to pirate the games -- that's almost guaranteed. So, in the end, all this will really do is piss off the legitimate customers who paid for something that suddenly doesn't work, though no fault of their own. That hardly seems like a good way to build up a strong supporting fan base. More of the same for us gamers. I use Steam and I must admit I have little to no issues with it, and I'm also an always-on internet user, but that doesn't mean that this system EA is trying to implement is fair to its users. Once again EA makes sure that those who payed for their Product are the ones having the less enjoyable experience. I'll sit nervously after double-clicking the Spore icon, praying that those 40 seconds the login procedure will take successfully validates me as an upright and most honorable EA client. On the other hand I'm quite sure my 12-year old neighbor will have no problem with his copy of Spore he downloaded from eMule last night, nor will he have to wait for the login procedure each time he runs the damn thing. Related: My Old Thread on similar issues.

GDNet Lounge Community

Started by Prozak May 08, 2008 08:19 AM

131 comments, last by Zahlman 15 years, 11 months ago

avorpalbunny

100

May 09, 2008 11:50 AM

Quote:Original post by Jesper T
Quote:Original post by Oluseyi

Your reductive comment actually undermines other positions I'm sure you espouse. For instance, if all games are is sequences of zeroes and ones and the idea of pirating them is laughable, then games are neither art nor intellectual property. They are, in effect, worthless.

It is important when discussing issues of this magnitude not to overreact.

Well, I'd be willing to consider it work of art. But not intellectual property. I dont think anyone can "own" information. This is my opinion though. But can you clearly define when you think a sequence of ones and zeros can be owned, and when it can not? Interestingly, some cultures doesnt even recognize ownership of concrete objects.

Its not the 1s and 0s they are protecting, its what they do with them, similar to a painter using paint to make a portrait.

You aren't copyrighting paint, you are copyrighting your finished work.

Brett Biery2D/3D Artist and Graphic DesignNewbie Programmer

Jesper T

322

May 09, 2008 11:59 AM

I believe that the real world analogy that people so often use is inherently flawed. This is not about concrete objects. Essentially, it is about information.

Energy of Nuclear Origin

NickGravelyn

855

May 09, 2008 12:24 PM

Quote:Original post by Jesper T
I believe that the real world analogy that people so often use is inherently flawed. This is not about concrete objects. Essentially, it is about information.

You could say the same for paintings. Nothing special there, just a specific order of drops of paint. Or a piece of music. It's just a set of frequencies played in a specific order. There's no difference in my mind. Physical and digital creations alike should be able to be protected. (Some) Game makers create art with their games. Some artists draw using only digital canvases. Everyone is entitled to protect their work. It's simply the extreme to which EA is going that bothers me.

MJP

20,295

May 09, 2008 12:27 PM

Quote:Original post by NickGravelyn
It's simply the extreme to which EA is going that bothers me.

Indeed. Protection is one thing, but techniques that are actively hostile to legitimate users is quite another.

The Blog | The Book

Jesper T

322

May 09, 2008 12:37 PM

Quote:Original post by NickGravelyn
Quote:Original post by Jesper T
I believe that the real world analogy that people so often use is inherently flawed. This is not about concrete objects. Essentially, it is about information.

You could say the same for paintings. Nothing special there, just a specific order of drops of paint. Or a piece of music. It's just a set of frequencies played in a specific order. There's no difference in my mind. Physical and digital creations alike should be able to be protected. (Some) Game makers create art with their games. Some artists draw using only digital canvases. Everyone is entitled to protect their work. It's simply the extreme to which EA is going that bothers me.

Correct, just a specific order of drops of paint which reflects photons of different frequencies, some of which happens to enter your eye and make some eletrons there shake a little bit. Or a certain variation in air pressure over time. The erronous analogy is equating the information of how to put those drops onto the canvas with the actual painting.

Dont misunderstand me. A piece of music can very well be special, beautiful, and have required a lot of work to compose and to play. But it is still just information, and in my opinion it is meaningless to talk about ownership of information.

And to say "protection of information" in this context is misleading because the implied meaning is that the "owner" of this information will somehow lose his information if someone "takes" it. Which is clearly not true, just another part of the flawed analogy.

[Edited by - Jesper T on May 9, 2008 1:37:55 PM]

Energy of Nuclear Origin

tstrimp

1,798

May 09, 2008 01:06 PM

Quote:Original post by Jesper T
And to say "protection of information" in this context is misleading because the implied meaning is that the "owner" of this information will somehow lose his information if someone "takes" it. Which is clearly not true, just another part of the flawed analogy.

Surely you can see how the information could lose value if someone took it.

Jesper T

322

May 09, 2008 01:11 PM

I would not say so, if by "take" you mean "copy". The value you speak of is a construct. If the information has any real value it is only increased if it is copied (take the song for example, if it is copied then many people are able to enjoy it - its value is greater).

Edit: I guess it depends on how you define value.

Energy of Nuclear Origin

tstrimp

1,798

May 09, 2008 01:40 PM

Quote:Original post by Jesper T
I would not say so, if by "take" you mean "copy". The value you speak of is a construct. If the information has any real value it is only increased if it is copied (take the song for example, if it is copied then many people are able to enjoy it - its value is greater).

Edit: I guess it depends on how you define value.

Then in your world, the value of a hundred dollar bill is the cost of the paper it's printed on?

Nytegard

842

May 09, 2008 02:02 PM

Quote:Original post by Jesper T
I would not say so, if by "take" you mean "copy". The value you speak of is a construct. If the information has any real value it is only increased if it is copied (take the song for example, if it is copied then many people are able to enjoy it - its value is greater).

Edit: I guess it depends on how you define value.

It really comes down to taking information though, not just copying information. If your pipes burst, you call a plumber. They fix it. If you don't pay the plumber, then would you admit that's wrong? What about building a house?

These are all physical things, copying digital information is different?
Well, not really. My job is all intellectual. I'm not paid to build houses, I'm not paid to fix pipes. I'm paid to think and express ideas. About the only physical work I do is the typing, and that's meaningless if my end result is only a displayable idea. Just like with music, you're not listening to a physical medium, you're listening to an expression of an idea. The same with paintings, etc. It's value is not greater if you copy it. It's value has been depreciated.

I can't physically build a house, so I pay someone else too. Just as someone who can't mentally create an idea should compensate those who can. That's where my trade is.

I'm sorry, but information is not free, and ownership of information is not meaningless. If a person wants it to be free, that's the person's right. Whether it's should be free or not is another topic, but that doesn't justify stealing someone else's work.

Jesper T

322

May 09, 2008 03:18 PM

Quote:Original post by tstrimp
Quote:Original post by Jesper T
I would not say so, if by "take" you mean "copy". The value you speak of is a construct. If the information has any real value it is only increased if it is copied (take the song for example, if it is copied then many people are able to enjoy it - its value is greater).

Edit: I guess it depends on how you define value.

Then in your world, the value of a hundred dollar bill is the cost of the paper it's printed on?

Exactly. Money has no value in it self. It is a symbol of value.

Energy of Nuclear Origin

EA takes the cake and eats it too

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

EA takes the cake and eats it too

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines