DRM and always on for a bright Gaming future - EA busted simcity release

[mrt144]

slippery slopes are a weak argument when Steam exists.

 

[Akka]

slippery slopes are a weak argument when Steam exists.

You mean one of the proof of slippery slopes is supposed to disprove it ?
Wow.

Yes, both systems offer a "self executing" enforcement capability, if you will, but one is better (read: less annoying) than the other.

And that's the crux : it's only about the "annoyance", completely forgetting the actual consumer rights bypassing. This kind of behaviour means that they can rip you off as much as they want if they do it covertly enough, which is the maddening point.

And it's also the way privacy is more and more infringed upon - by doing it under the radar, and by using the apathetic "oh well, I've nothing to hide/I don't care as I'm lost in the numbers/whatever" reasoning of the people.

 

[mrt144]

As more and more DRM gets more draconian Steam stays the same.

 

[mrt144]

And then there's gog.com.

 

[Akka]

As more and more DRM gets more draconian Steam stays the same.

As I already pointed it, Steam is ALREADY the second-most draconian DRM existing. How exactly is it a glorious achievement not to become worse when you're already there ?

And then there's gog.com.

I've absolutely nothing bad to say about GoG, and they're the only light of hope I see in this rotten industry.
In fact, I think I've bought nothing outside of GoG since one or two years now. And I dutifully NEVER pirate anything I can get there.

Steam is a sneaky pile of crap benefiting from its weirdly good publicity to abuse consumer rights.
GoG IS the actual good way of evolving consumer-publisher relationship.

 

[mrt144]

it contradicts the slippery slope fallacy. Steam isn't getting worse when a slippery slope explicitly states the entire industry is circling the drain.

 

[Akka]

it contradicts the slippery slope fallacy. Steam isn't getting worse when a slippery slope explicitly states the entire industry is circling the drain.

No, the slippery slope states that things which were not tolerable previously becomes progressively acceptable as they are added by small bits.

And there has been a definite much greater acceptance of intrusive DRM (to the point that now many people are downright arguing they are intrusive at all, which speaks by itself) that would have been totally unthinkable just a few years ago.

 

[illram]

You mean one of the proof of slippery slopes is supposed to disprove it ?
Wow.

And that's the crux : it's only about the "annoyance", completely forgetting the actual consumer rights bypassing. This kind of behaviour means that they can rip you off as much as they want if they do it covertly enough, which is the maddening point.

And it's also the way privacy is more and more infringed upon - by doing it under the radar, and by using the apathetic "oh well, I've nothing to hide/I don't care as I'm lost in the numbers/whatever" reasoning of the people.

I don't think ignoring privacy rights is the crux of this argument, because what are we really talking about here? Video games. Privacy rights are not the crux of anything in this discussion because this is ultimately a frivolous inconsequential luxury.

How is Steam ripping me off anyway? I buy the game, I see the bill, I pay it. I get what I pay for. A very small number of users have been mistakenly cut off, I understand, but this is not unexpected and I do not think that points to anything nefarious other than routine corporate scew-ups that happen with any large company. I am aware of the consumer rights I waive (no class actions, no jury trials, significant provider control over access) by using Steam, and the big picture of how those contract terms became legal troubles me very deeply, but keep in mind every single contract an American signs with any large company in the United States for any basic service (telephone, cable, internet, you name it) includes language allowing them to wield similar control over you. Steam, like any large provider, is taking advantage of a system of anti-consumer laws that support this behavior. Not much I can do about that. Importantly, since Steam is so unimportant in the long run (video games?) the fact that Steam says on paper that they can basically do whatever they want and I have no recourse other than filing an expensive arbitration claim does not really bother me too much, to be honest.

In other words, there is a difference between being naive and knowing the potential problems and making an informed decision. And we are talking about video games here. The Government saying they can kill me with a drone anytime they feel like it? Yeah that might make me a little more concerned. But this?

 

[warpus]

It should be clear from my previous posts that I'm not anti-DRM, nor am I pro-EA or EA's choice of online-only play in SimCity 5. All I want is some statutory protection for consumers, to prevent companies arbitrarily banning your account without due process or legal recourse. You call them "fringe cases", but there have been far too many "fringe cases", where consumers have been screwed over by companies banning accounts or revoking access arbitrarily. It's not even specific to DRM -- PayPal have done the same, except with real businesses and real people losing lots and lots of real money. There simply needs to be more statutory protection for consumers so that accounts are more like bank accounts, that can only be closed in specific, proscribed circumstances, and with legal recourse for consumers who have had their accounts banned or frozen arbitrarily. This is a big new industry with big money and lots of people on the line. It should be regulated.

But.. Google is not steam. Do you have an example of something like this happening to a Steam user? Cause I mean, I totally agree with everything you say, so there is no real disagreement there.

You're welcome to actually read something before answering to it :

- The games which requires an authentification at each start won't ever work.
- The games which requires an authentification when installed will work... but only as long as you don't change your computer. If you need to change your OS, or your computer, or if you ever want to install the game on another machine... you're screwed.

Because it seems that's exactly what I'm saying, so from where do come your "you don't know how it works" ?
And yes, requring validation from someone else to be able to install and play your own copy of the game is something that I don't see as "non-intrusive".

You CAN install the same game on multiple computers. You CAN play steam games offline. You do NOT need authentication each time you play a steam game. Yes, if you change your computer or re-install, you will have to authenticate once, after which point you will be able to play offline all you want.

If all you are saying is "Having to install my game from a 3rd party client is intrusive" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to put your opinion down as "out there".

 

[Akka]

You CAN install the same game on multiple computers. You CAN play steam games offline. You do NOT need authentication each time you play a steam game. Yes, if you change your computer or re-install, you will have to authenticate once, after which point you will be able to play offline all you want.

Seriously, READ THE F-ING THING before answering !
You completely miss the points made.

If all you are saying is "Having to install my game from a 3rd party client is intrusive" then I'm afraid I'm going to have to put your opinion down as "out there".

If you don't see the problem of requiring the permission of a third party to allow you to use your own copy, then you're the one out here.

I don't think ignoring privacy rights is the crux of this argument, because what are we really talking about here? Video games. Privacy rights are not the crux of anything in this discussion because this is ultimately a frivolous inconsequential luxury.

Err...
Hello ?
That's absolutely not what I said.
I didn't say that privacy was the crux of the problem with video games, I said :

And that's the crux : it's only about the "annoyance", completely forgetting the actual consumer rights bypassing. This kind of behaviour means that they can rip you off as much as they want if they do it covertly enough, which is the maddening point.

All I see here is that "the crux" is that people don't give a crap as long as their consumers rights are removed sneakily enough that they aren't disturbed.

The privacy rights bit was just an added point about how it's happening in the same way, for the same reasons :

And it's also the way privacy is more and more infringed upon - by doing it under the radar, and by using the apathetic "oh well, I've nothing to hide/I don't care as I'm lost in the numbers/whatever" reasoning of the people.

How the hell could you mix everything like that when the entire post I made was barely two sentences long, and with the two parts even clearly separated by a blank space ?

Though for the record, Steam DOES get data from you and IS violating your privacy (again, in a sneaky enough and non-annoying enough way so people just say "so what ?" and don't care about the principle).

How is Steam ripping me off anyway? I buy the game

No you don't. You pay to be able to ask a third party to let you play as long as they feel it. That's one of the main problem.

I see the bill, I pay it. I get what I pay for. A very small number of users have been mistakenly cut off, I understand, but this is not unexpected and I do not think that points to anything nefarious other than routine corporate scew-ups that happen with any large company.

The problem is not that it happens sometimes, the problem is that such restrictions should not be acceptable. If you buy something, you should be able to use it whenever and wherever you want, and not be required to be online and beg someone else to let you use it.

I am aware of the consumer rights I waive (no class actions, no jury trials, significant provider control over access) by using Steam, and the big picture of how those contract terms became legal troubles me very deeply, but keep in mind every single contract an American signs with any large company in the United States for any basic service (telephone, cable, internet, you name it) includes language allowing them to wield similar control over you. Steam, like any large provider, is taking advantage of a system of anti-consumer laws that support this behavior. Not much I can do about that. Importantly, since Steam is so unimportant in the long run (video games?) the fact that Steam says on paper that they can basically do whatever they want and I have no recourse other than filing an expensive arbitration claim does not really bother me too much, to be honest.

And my question is : how do you think that such a situation, where laws are so companies-friendly and so consumer-unfriendly, came from ?
Because the reason I find is not "people complained too much about their rights being abused"...

In other words, there is a difference between being naive and knowing the potential problems and making an informed decision. And we are talking about video games here. The Government saying they can kill me with a drone anytime they feel like it? Yeah that might make me a little more concerned. But this?

First, the entire reasoning "there is something worse, so we shouldn't even bother about this" is flawed. I hope I don't need to explain why.

Second, on a more overly-dramatic point, I feel that there is a HUGE underappreciation about how important copyright laws and data legality are in the long term.
Basically anything can become/be made data - ANYTHING, be it image, text, your bank accounts and operation or your calls to your friends, just as well as software or movies or designs. It has, on the whole, very far reaching consequences. Video games are only a tiny part of it, and the very worrying trend (for much more than simply "can I play Sim City without my broadband ?") is simply that by letting copyright laws becoming so important and so abusive, we're gambling a big part of our actual freedom in the future.

No, of course, whining about DRM about a video game is not about fighting against corporations like Monsanto which are putting patents on living beings. But the general apathy about letting corporate interests encroach on our civil rights is the same.

 

[warpus]

No you don't. You pay to be able to ask a third party to let you play as long as they feel it. That's one of the main problem.

Your concerns really do read like someone with a tinfoil hat on. I've been playing games on steam for over 2 years now and it's not "whenever they feel like it". I play my games whenever I feel like it and have had no issues.

What level of DRM would be acceptable for you, then? Maybe we should re-start this discussion with that.

 

[Akka]

Your concerns really do read like someone with a tinfoil hat on. I've been playing games on steam for over 2 years now and it's not "whenever they feel like it". I play my games whenever I feel like it and have had no issues.

I don't see how it counters my point. They still can cut you off your OWN copies whenever they want.
It's not because someone doesn't USE a power given on him, that it makes it more acceptable to surrender it to him. Again, it's a problem of principle and of rights, which is hidden by people not caring for things they don't see.

What level of DRM would be acceptable for you, then? Maybe we should re-start this discussion with that.

DRM is in itself a necessary evil - that is, it has no justification by itself, only justification because of piracy. As such, nothing more than the bare minimum should be acceptable and legal.
There ARE publishers and studios who have a zero-DRM policy, and still manage to not be bankrupt (GoG, Stardock and Paradox for example). DRM aren't even absolutely necessary.

I can accept DRM limited in time - that is, a game has whatever DRM the publisher wants, but after six monthes, the DRM is entirely removed.
I also don't mind DRM which requires a CD, or a code (though these ones are so easily cracked they might as well not exist).

In the end, whatever DRM that doesn't have the possibility to prevent me from using my own copy is acceptable - isn't it the very BASIS of what "buying" means ?

BTW, many DRM should be illegal under many laws, because they restrict the fair use of the copy, and prevent you to give it to someone else.

 

[mrt144]

You could be shot tomorrow. What are you doing about that possibility?

 

[illram]

Akka, what has Steam done in their history to lead you to have the sort of wild-eyed suspicions you currently have? Because nothing I have seen has given me any reason to doubt that I am going to continue to receive the service I pay for without any real issue. Steam has not engaged in any flagrant corporate abuses or blatantly consumer fraud as far as I can see. If you know of any, I would love to know about them. Steam does not let me play if "they feel like it," they let me play because I payed for it and I am following the TOS, and if I continue to do that they cannot cut me off since normal contract principles still apply here no matter how over-reaching they want to be in their license agreement.

It is one thing to blindly accept it when you are getting screwed or manipulated, it is also another to imagine bogeymen where they do not exist.

 

[cardgame]

If it's merely the premise that they have the power, as you seem to be indicating in your most recent post, US police can detain anyone at any time for any reason for up to 24 hours, IIRC.

It seems like you live in a state of fear.

 

[mrt144]

Akka, what has Steam done in their history to lead you to have the sort of wild-eyed suspicions you currently have? Because nothing I have seen has given me any reason to doubt that I am going to continue to receive the service I pay for without any real issue. Steam has not engaged in any flagrant corporate abuses or blatantly consumer fraud as far as I can see. If you know of any, I would love to know about them.

It is one thing to blindly accept it when you are getting screwed or manipulated, it is also another to imagine bogeymen where they do not exist.

Its the slippery slope that all companies are incrementally doing stuff to infringe on our consumer rights. It's so obvious, GOSH!

 

[warpus]

I don't see how it counters my point. They still can cut you off your OWN copies whenever they want.
It's not because someone doesn't USE a power given on him, that it makes it more acceptable to surrender it to him. Again, it's a problem of principle and of rights, which is hidden by people not caring for things they don't see.

They can, but again, that sounds like an unfounded fear to me. "It could technically happen" does it mean that it ever will. Technically I could be hit by a car at virtually any time when I'm a pedestrian on the streets, but I don't let that stop me from walking places.

I get that you are arguing from a purely academic "user rights" perspective, but after 2 years with the service none of my rights have been compromised and I've only ever been given:

1. Cheaper games
2. Convenience

I understand your outrage from a purely academic perspective. From a functional one, it seems very unnecessary and yeah, of the "but it could happen!!" variety. It could, but Microsoft could easily disable your windows with a random windows update. Does that mean you're not going to use windows from now on?

DRM is in itself a necessary evil - that is, it has no justification by itself, only justification because of piracy. As such, nothing more than the bare minimum should be acceptable and legal.
There ARE publishers and studios who have a zero-DRM policy, and still manage to not be bankrupt (GoG, Stardock and Paradox for example). DRM aren't even absolutely necessary.

Paradox sell most of their games online. A lot of those sales come through steam. As far as I know their online store just gives you steam keys. So no, they do not have a zero-DRM policy.

I just did some googling and Stardock games can be bought on steam as well. Gog indeed appears to be fully DRM-free, but as far as I know they only sell older games. So you are 1/3 in your examples, and the third one is a bit wishy washy as the service doesn't sell new games, just old ones.

 

[Zelig]

I understand your outrage from a purely academic perspective. From a functional one, it seems very unnecessary and yeah, of the "but it could happen!!" variety. It could, but Microsoft could easily disable your windows with a random windows update.

No, I can just choose not to install the update.

 

[FriendlyFire]

To the executives at EA, from one of your employees

I am deeply embarrassed by the troubled launch of Sim City and I hope you are too. When I walk around our campus and look at the kind of talent we’ve collected, the amenities we have access to and the opportunities working at such a big company affords us, I can’t imagine how for release after release, EA continues to make the same embarrassing, anti-consumer mistakes. We should be better than this. You should not be failing us so badly.

Another thing I see when I walk around our campus are massive banners that display what are said to be our company values. They are on posters on every floor, included in company-wide emails and hanging above the cafeteria in bright colors. You even print them on our coffee mugs so we see them every day. But somehow when planning the launch of Sim City, you threw them all out the window.

Most important of the values you are ignoring is Think Consumers First. What part of the Sim City DRM scheme, which has rendered the game unplayable for hundreds of thousands of fans across the globe, demonstrates that you are thinking about consumers before you are thinking about yourselves? Does “first” mean something different in boardrooms than it does to the rest of us? Does the meaning of that word change when you get the word “executive” in front of your title?

You can’t even pretend that you didn’t know consumers would be angry about this. Common sense aside, consumers complained about this during your public betas. In fact, when one of them posted his criticisms on the forums, he was banned! You tried to silence your critics. The same thing is happening now as users write in to demand refunds. What part of this behavior aligns with our company value to Be Accountable?

What you’ve demonstrated with this launch is that our corporate management does not believe in our core values. They are for the unwashed masses, not for the important people who forced this anti-consumer DRM onto the Sim City team. This DRM scheme is not about the consumers or even about piracy. It’s about covering your own asses. It allows you to hand-wave weak sales or bad reviews and blame outside factors like pirates or server failures in the event the game struggles. You are protecting your own jobs at the expense of consumers. I think this violates the Act With Integrity value I’m looking at on my own coffee mug right now.

On behalf of your other employees, I’d like to ask you to fix this. Allow the Sim City team to patch the game to run offline. If Create Quality and Innovation is still a core value that you believe in, then this shouldn’t be a hard decision. Games that gamers can’t play because of server overload or ISP issues are NOT quality. Be Bold by giving the consumers what they want and take accountability for the mistake.

Finally I’d like to ask you to follow the last company value on the list in the future: Learn and Grow. When you made this mistake with Spore, the company and all your employees suffered for it. You didn’t learn from that mistake and you are making it again with Sim City.

So please, learn from this debacle. Don’t do this again. Grow into better leaders and actually apply our company values when you make decisions. Don’t just use them as tools to motivate your staff. With the money, talent and intellectual property available to EA, we should be leading the industry into a golden age of consumer-focused game publishing. Instead we’re the most reviled game publisher in the world. That’s your fault. Things can only change if you actually start following the company values and apply them to every title we launch.

Sincerely,

A Disappointed But Hopeful Artist at EARS

EDIT: with regards to proof, I am an employee, so I do not want to jeopardize my standing, but today, all regular EA employees got an e-mail with a note from Gabrielle Toledano in celebration of International Women's Day. Another EA employee would have to confirm, but its the most proof I'm willing to risk providing.

"Hello I.T. Department, can you send me a list of all the employees who were using reddit at about 2pm EST?"

Poor Former EA employee.

 

[warpus]

No, I can just choose not to install the update.

Sure, but that was just a random example. A lot of people have their updates set up on auto. Point is, there is a lot of malicious stuff people can do to you if they wanted to.

My camera for example? Maybe it has functionality inside to break down exactly 5 years after I buy it? Who knows?

Point is you'll get nowhere worrying about all these things that can happen to you. Valve have a great track record and I trust them. I also trust the police not to taze my balls when I'm walking down the street. But hey.. they could!