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

[Zelig]

It doesn't have an ongoing cost to play though.

 

[mrt144]

Yeah, it's like McDonald's replacing the Big Mac with the Big Mac 2.0, but instead of meat and special sauce inside you find a potato

And why do they do it? Because you, that's why

 

[cardgame]

It doesn't have an ongoing cost to play though.

Maybe not financially...

 

[Mise]

I referenced that in my post ("the Orwellian license agreement notwithstanding"), and I noted that every license agreement in every EULA since these became popular has had similar orwellian language claiming that the developer has the rights to pull the license at any time. Every Xbox game you play online has the same language, for example. I agree that this language sucks but this is the state of software licensing these days, unless you want to be real choosy.

EA is going beyond bad language and locking the user in directly, however. Admittedly I do not have this game, but from reading about it it appears EA has everything stored online and you basically have zero ability to do anything without EA servers. If Bethesda decided to stop supporting Skyrim tomorrow I could still logon to Steam, I still have all my saves, I still have the game on my system, and I can still play. If Activision shut down all their servers, or Xbox live decided it didn't want to offer me internet service anymore, I could still play with COD bots in single player or play the single player campaign. EA is taking things a step further and making the entire game completely dependent on EA running everything server side, presumably so that the player is completely dependent on doing whatever EA wants to keep playing. This is more than scary EULA language that may or may not ultimately come to fruition; this is hogtying users now from day one. Yes, I have to trust that Steam will not simply arbitrarily cut me off. I like to think of myself as generally not a naive person, and I really don't think Steam is just going to do that. (It wouldn't make much financial sense for them anyway since they sell other developer content.) But with EA, their DRM is far more integrated.

tl;dr: Steam can, hypothetically, screw people later. EA is screwing people now.

Steam has actually banned people's accounts, leaving them unable to access any of the games bought on Steam.

 

[mrt144]

Steam has actually banned people's accounts, leaving them unable to access any of the games bought on Steam.

usually because of chargebacks.

 

[Mise]

Right yeah, but the point is this isn't a hypothetical scenario -- Steam really does prevent you from accessing your games if you violate the TOS. And I know from experience that companies aren't only banning people who have violated the TOS. Sometimes they get false positives too. Google banned my account, saying I breached their TOS, and it took a day to restore access. But they didn't just ban me from the specific service that I was accused of violating the TOS for, they banned me from everything. It is not far fetched to imagine that Steam gets it wrong one day and wrongly bans you from your account. I read a story about a woman who bought a 2nd hand kindle, and Amazon banned her because it was previously used by someone who had abused Amazon's TOS. Amazon wiped her kindle remotely, and as her account was banned, she couldn't reclaim any of the books she had bought on any other device either. Even the ones she bought previously, before she got the 2nd hand kindle. That's the problem with DRM, with goods that we traditionally buy outright instead being sold as perpetual, instantly, arbitrarily revocable licenses.

 

[warpus]

Yep, false positives happen. There isn't a perfect solution you know. From what I've heard Steam actually does do a decent job of following up with people who have been wronged, at least from the stories I've read on reddit. I don't think they're some wunder company that is perfect.. They make mistakes. Everybody does. But yeah, if you go against the TOS, you might be SOL. That's not very surprising, is it?

 

[Mise]

Yeah but I don't get why people who dislike DRM are so keen on Steam, when Steam's DRM actually carries an even greater risk. Because it's not just 1 game that goes offline if you get banned, it's all your games that you've bought through Steam.

 

[mrt144]

Yeah but I don't get why people who dislike DRM are so keen on Steam, when Steam's DRM actually carries an even greater risk. Because it's not just 1 game that goes offline if you get banned, it's all your games that you've bought through Steam.

Because the experience of most users has been pretty good. I mean, how much more obvious can we make this for you? Not all DRM is the same especially from a customer support context.

 

[Mise]

Because the experience of most users has been pretty good. I mean, how much more obvious can we make this for you? Not all DRM is the same especially from a customer support context.

Yeah well that's what "greater risk" means in this context. Most people are "safe", but if you're unlucky enough to get screwed over, then you're REALLY screwed over.

 

[mrt144]

Yeah well that's what "greater risk" means in this context. Most people are "safe", but if you're unlucky enough to get screwed over, then you're REALLY screwed over.

And it happens so infrequently on steam that there should be no need for wondering why people are okay with steam. Stop wringing your hands over fringe cases.

 

[Akka]

Of course it's DRM, but it's not intrusive DRM. It's DRM the way DRM should be.

If you are seriously claiming that their DRM is of the exact same breed as EA's, then you my kind sir have no idea what you are talking about.

Actually, I think you're the one having no idea what Steam is about if you consider that they are "not intrusive" and "as it should be".
It's second in intrusiveness and abusiveness only to "always-on" DRM. Second worst is hardly "as it should be".

See the rest of the post for the details.

I don't get what akka is going on about.

About this and above : what I'm on about is that Steam is about being the second worst possible DRM - requiring Internet connection to validate your game, even when they are single player ones, able to deactivate your own copy of the game, requiring a third party software to run one of your game.

Mise shown example of what happens and is legal when you use Steam. That people blame piracy (which is at least recognized as being illegal) on one hand, and defend a system that deny you the right of using what you buy as you see fit (and is considered legal on top of that) on the other, is just something making me bash my head against the wall.

And despite this extremely intrusive and abusive system, they STILL manage to have people like you two claiming they are "good and non-intrusive DRM". That's just unbelievable.

I'm fine with online DRM when it's online DRM that actually works. SHOCK!

Yes, being fine with online DRM is shocking. It's frankly frightening to see just how people becomes comfortable to hand over their consumer rights without a second thought and even defending people who do this to them.

I referenced that in my post ("the Orwellian license agreement notwithstanding")

The problem is that it's not just "a license", but it's a very real and existing ability.
Most people ignore EULA because they are abusive, but mostly unenforceable. Steam's conditions, on the other hands, ARE enforceable. They CAN deactivate your account and your game remotely (and already did so).

EA is going beyond bad language and locking the user in directly, however. Admittedly I do not have this game, but from reading about it it appears EA has everything stored online and you basically have zero ability to do anything without EA servers. If Bethesda decided to stop supporting Skyrim tomorrow I could still logon to Steam, I still have all my saves, I still have the game on my system, and I can still play.

Your comparison is faulty, because you compare EA (the one running the server) to Bethesda (while it's Valve which runs the servers).
If you make an adequate comparison (Steam stops running the servers tomorrow), then you are only in a barely better position : you can keep your local saves (not, obviously, your remote ones), but NO you can't really keep running your games :
- 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.

Steam situation is, in practice, nearly the same kind of abuse. If the servers shuts off, it's only "better" on a very theorical level.

 

[warpus]

Yeah but I don't get why people who dislike DRM are so keen on Steam, when Steam's DRM actually carries an even greater risk. Because it's not just 1 game that goes offline if you get banned, it's all your games that you've bought through Steam.

Because it's made me not only buy all my games, and not only has it given me a gaming library of 200+ games for a very low price, it's also made me enjoy games I would have never enjoyed. Without Steam I wouldn't be gaming nearly as much as I have been.

I have no plans to go against anything in the TOS. The scenario you quote is one that almost never happens, unless you are a dumbass who does something that's not allowed. Then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

In the end it's made gaming a lot more convenient for me. I am willing to pay for that.

Yes, being fine with online DRM is shocking. It's frankly frightening to see just how people becomes comfortable to hand over their consumer rights without a second thought and even defending people who do this to them.

When you say things like this, it makes me think that you have no idea how Steam actually works.

You need to be online to download and install your game (duh), but you can then play it offline, if you want to.

In the end I weigh piracy vs Steam. Steam wins hands down. If piracy was more convenient overall, I'd still be a pirate.

 

[illram]

Yeah but I don't get why people who dislike DRM are so keen on Steam, when Steam's DRM actually carries an even greater risk. Because it's not just 1 game that goes offline if you get banned, it's all your games that you've bought through Steam.

For me, it's not a dislike of DRM per se, it's a dislike of specific ways in which it is handled. Such as, artificially turning a great single player game into an exclusively multiplayer one in order to incorporate DRM. Steam's very very low risk that they screw up and accidentally cut you off is tolerable since their DRM is handled in a relatively unobtrusive way outside of all the games. For me, for example, it automatically signs in when I turn on my computer and I hardly even notice it. Most of the time I don't even go into Steam, I just directly click on the game's icon and start playing. If you want to pretend it isn't even there, it is not that hard. Plus, Steam carries the added value for me of being a convenient way to buy games and content. Put it all on a scale and I am comfortable with the idea that someday I might have to wrangle with customer service for a day or two to fix a discrepancy.

The conspiracy theorist in me also just distrusts EA with letting us all play Sim City 5 forever, since they have a well documented history, especially with their sports franchises, of shutting down servers on games as early as two years after release if they have a newer iteration out. However it is too early to tell if they will handle Sim City 5 this way so I won't hold that against them... yet!

 

[warpus]

And if anything the games I buy on Steam are MORE open with MORE room for mods and MORE community involvement. Not less. Gameplay is not affected by the type of DRM Steam uses.. at all. That makes me a happy happy gamer. And I can play these games offline? And install on multiple machines no problem? Super happy.

 

[mrt144]

Akka, maybe I am not really worried about giving up me "consumer rights" because video games aren't my life. I enjoy them, I play them but if I wasnt able to for some inexplicable reason tomorrow, I'd be fine.

 

[Mise]

And it happens so infrequently on steam that there should be no need for wondering why people are okay with steam. Stop wringing your hands over fringe cases.

The scenario you quote is one that almost never happens

It happened to me with Google, and it was not a pleasant experience at all! I can't imagine what it would be like if I lost all my games as well...

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.

 

[illram]

Your comparison is faulty, because you compare EA (the one running the server) to Bethesda (while it's Valve which runs the servers).
If you make an adequate comparison (Steam stops running the servers tomorrow), then you are only in a barely better position : you can keep your local saves (not, obviously, your remote ones), but NO you can't really keep running your games :
- 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.

Steam situation is, in practice, nearly the same kind of abuse. If the servers shuts off, it's only "better" on a very theorical level.

I am intentionally comparing the two because Steam is a good example of, in my opinion, acceptable added value DRM. Sim City 5 is not. Yes, both systems offer a "self executing" enforcement capability, if you will, but one is better (read: less annoying) than the other. The Bethesda comparison was also intentional because that is a critical difference in how Steam operates that makes it better, in my opinion (see below). If you want an "in house" example, if Valve released another Half Life and turned it into a multiplayer only experience or in some other way altered it so that I had noting local on my PC and I could not play offline or do other things I was already accustomed to in previous Half Life games, I would definitely have the same criticism.

And really, is Steam going to close up shop anytime soon? And if they were, I would have to assume that the very large number of very big game developers who provide content through Steam (such as Bethesda) would in some way attempt a workaround so their users could still access their content. Developers have a financial incentive to keep their players so they can continue to purchase DLC, for example. There is more inherent security in a system that operates as a marketplace for a variety of developers, in my opinion, than the model of a single game monopolizing your purchase and gameplay experience completely. Especially if that game comes from a developer with a history of intentionally shutting down servers on not-very-old games to force people to buy updated copies.

Look at Sim City 5 for what it is: EA is trying to expand its in game revenue generating and DRM ability. Steam is all about making big bucks too, I am not a starry eyed Steam lover here, but as a consumer I would prefer the Steam alternative, so that's where my money goes.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree! The consumer losing their ability to sue any of these developers in court (here in the US, at least) was a not so nice development in recent years and would be a small step towards what you're talking about... but that is another thread entirely. (We have that thread too, somewhere in here... I think I was complaining about this problem then too.)

 

[TheLastOne36]

Solution? Ignore pirates. No DRM can ever beat the hacking teams and meanwhile the means to achieve an impossible end are alienating their customers. I'm not saying they should drop every single protection, just keep it to a one-time serial confirmation as it was years ago.

You say that, but Football Manager 2013 proved to be uncrackable by Skidrow and the other guys and I ended up paying full price for it.

 

[Akka]

When you say things like this, it makes me think that you have no idea how Steam actually works.

You need to be online to download and install your game (duh), but you can then play it offline, if you want to.

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".

Akka, maybe I am not really worried about giving up me "consumer rights" because video games aren't my life. I enjoy them, I play them but if I wasnt able to for some inexplicable reason tomorrow, I'd be fine.

That's the usual weak and beside the point argument. It's not a point about "living with or without", it's a point about principle and slippery slope. It's not by trying to look cool and shrugging when the consumers rights were trampled that we developped laws protecting us (though less and less) from abusive commercial practices. Being apathetic about getting shafted is not cool, it's lame.

And please don't tell me the slippery slope is not a valid argument, as the progressively more and more intrusive DRM is the world benchmark of slippery slopes.