I think its throwing crumbs to people where they should be throwing big fat loaves of bread. Basically they increased the number of allowed hardware changes from three to five, after that its the same customer support crap they have now, you still *have* to have an internet connection to activate the game which renders that whole "no active internet connection needed after activation" sort of moot.

They need to get rid of that DRM crap altogether. As was said countless times already, pirates do not care about their DRM schemes and crack them in two days, the only people who have to deal with it are paying customers.

I'm hoping that things such as the enormous tidal wave of negative Amazon ratings on Spore will dissuade them from this path. But who knows.

Given the ratings of Spore, above and beyond the furore about DRM, I shan't be buying. I might have, just to have something to play with my 4-year old daughter, but if I can't guarantee that it will survive a GPU upgrade and a disk crash after it's initial install, I'm not buying.

Maximum props to Chris Taylor for taking his game to Stardock to publish. As an aside, reading the fuss about DRM is what made me aware of Demigod - someone mentioned it in a Slashdot thread about Spore.

GAME in the UK have knocked Mass Effect down to a mere £19.99 ; cheaper than even the Jersey-hosted mail retailers (who avoid UK VAT and can thus provide a very cheap product). This was cheap enough to qualify as an impulse buy (pun intended), but I still feel uneasy about the online activation. You only have to go over to BioWare's forums to see how negatively their customers feel about it ; BioWare games usually have immense longevity and replayability, but I tend to revisit them again after long breaks in play - as story-based media, you want to allow the story to fade a little so it remains fresh. Mass Effect has a 15GB install footprint ; that's bigger than my entire Steam folder! I want to be able to uninstall it, but I can't be sure that won't burn an activation.

You could argue that limited activations tied to hardware hashes supress the entire PC gaming industry ; games traditionally make you want shiny new hardware, shiny new hardware allows developers new opportunities. This DRM dissuades you from upgrading your hardware because it might just be enough to lock out the games you upgraded to play smoother/shinier.

I can see some of EA's dilemma ; a modern gaming rig has a vast supply of content to choose from - all the way back to the 80s. Once in a while I'll wheel out an emulator and play something classic like Deuteros or Wicked. One problem for all modern PC game publishers is that it's entirely possible to feed all your gaming urges on old content, if you are prepared to compromise, shop around, take hand-me-downs from your gaming dad, download "abandonware", etc. Are EA attempting to forestall this effect on the next generation by making sure that the games of today, are not available for the generation of tomorrow? They can't hope to succeed, as any pirate will tell you, but I imagine that if you pointed it out to them that their titles now have a "shelf life" only as long as their activation server support, they wouldn't be in the least bit distressed.

The only way forward for the PC gaming industry is forward - better content (not just shinier, but more fun!), better deliver, better market penetration. Games that you can't return, exchange, sell on or keep for posterity are not the way forward.

Here's a compromise I'd be willing to make on the matter ;

Publish games with DRM. Do not require it for install, just play. Include a DRM removal tool with the game ; but encrypt it. Lodge the decryption key in escrow with a lawyer that will release your decryption key on your corporate demise or if the server goes offline.

Otherwise, the Gamers Bill of Rights seems to be an excellent idea. I have one revision I'd like to see ; point 6 says

"Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent."

"without their express consent" - This is just an invitation to cram an obscured clause right into the middle of the EULA and call it "express consent".

"hidden" - If you're installing something "hidden", that is by definition, without consent - if you asked me nicely, there's no need to hide it.

"drivers" - Using drivers in protection is somewhat dubious anyway - it's done to run things in kernel space. Well, anyone with enough knowledge to be using a debugger isn't going to be dissuaded by that. And installing drivers can lead to operating system instability, security vulnerabilities, the whole nine yards. And of course, they stick around when you remove the game.

"other potentially harmful software" - You should never install potentially harmful software ever, even if you somehow managed to sneak my permission. If you admit to it, you are probably guilty of a criminal offense in many places. Now, all software run outside of a sandbox, even running with limited user rights, is potentially harmful because it's imperfect and MAY rampage across your hard drive replacing your work with the secret naked texture set from the game... but it's unlikely to be deliberate, and you cover your ass on that pont in the warranty. Giving people a get-out for installing "harmful" stuff "with permission" is not just redundant (because you agree to it elsewhere in the EULA), but also sounds like someone who want's to install something that's not just potentially harmful, but selectively and deliberately harmful.

So in short, I'd replace point 6 with

"Gamers have the right to expect that games won't install drivers (except for hardware supplied with the game), and won't contain software designed to limit or damage the normal functions of the operating system or other installed programs when the game is not running."

That seems to allow enough wiggle room to disable the operation of debuggers and the like during game operation without carte blanche to mess with the rest of the OS. I would be prepared to conceded the drivers issue as long as they only function during game operation.

I will simply not any title no matter how much I want it with such DRM on it. S-ROM is nothing more than SF in a nicer suit as far as I'm concerned.

I did not but ME, even after leading the Amazon rebelling against a certain writer and I will not buy Spore or any other title published by EA or other dev house with that crap. I'm a PAYING consumer treat me like you want my business not like I'm some kind of low life bum who happens to want your product so you make me prove time and time again I'm worthy of the privilege of experiencing your product.

I think I'll one of these customers: "I would like to buy it, because I love the game, but with with kind of DRM/Copyprotection I simply won't do it."

The bad thing is that is hurts a bit. I always love these ugly videos and bad story, because they were just good for laughing. Command & Conquer was also a good game for just gaming and not thinking. Well, the good side is that I'll think about buying Sins of a Solar Empire. It has an online activision, but I'm treated like a thief.

No it doesn't.

You can play Sins right out of the box without any internet connection. However, if you want patches/additional content or to play mutliplayer games, then you have to register it on-line. (it's still not an activation per se though). But the game plays just fine in single player out of the box with no activation/registration required.

Click on the external link, you can find above and read what EA wrote.

Well if it gave like 20 activations it wouldn't be bad.

5 still isn't enough.  Nto to mention what happens if they take the activation servers down in 5 years?

I'm STILL playing UT99 and WC3 and i've done things that would of required a new activation more than 10 times on them.

UT more like 20 times!

I've actually bought 3 copies of UT99 though lmao.  First one was free with sound card(yeah i got my sound card im still using that long ago), one was $10, the other was like $8 or something.

Arrrhhhh me mateies, tis thee time to be jolly and drink me a keg o' rum it tis! There be moare pirates joinin me crew err day and then all but nate will stop me n' me crew findin thar treasure!

Umm... we are all talking about the same pirates right?

It says "Internet connection required for activation" on the front and "internet connection, online authentication and acceptance of end user Lie (EULA) required to play. To access online features you must register blah blah blah blah."

Nothing about the specifc implementation of SecuROM.

hopefully this kind of thing will be challenged in the courts and put down at some point. If you're right, then imagine if they started doing this with books.  Books are physical tangible items, treated as consumer goods, but w/intellectual property w/in.  You buy the book, you aren't buying ownership of the IP itself, that stays w/the author, you're just getting a limited set of rights.  That's all fine and dandy, as it has been, and as it should be.  But imagine if books had a EULA, though of course the book is shrinkwrapped and you can't read the EULA until you get it home, and your retailer won't take returns of books after the shrinkwrap is opened, so if you open it, read the EULA, are horrified by it . . . tough.  'By reading this book you are saying you agree that you can only open it up, and only up to 2 people can read it' etc...  (Reminds me of little kids talking to someone who's ignoring them - 'if you agree that you owe me 50 bucks, don't say anything').  Libraries wouldn't be able to stock any new books anymore, because they'd never be able to get any sort of right over the book in the first place in order to do so.  And you can't sell this book you bought to a used book store anymore, as the eula said you agree to burn it when you've used up your uses.  If you try to sell it to a bookstore, some equivelant of the RIAA or MPAA will come after you, and you'll find yourself in court, for having violated this very fairly entered into contract.  Used book stores would cease to exist, because there'd be no more such thing as a used book.  Never mind the first sale doctrine, and other limitations to copyright, we'll just EULA our way around it to pretend its a matter of only contract law rather than IP law.

Then again, digital books, are doing just this, and getting away w/it.  DRM'd digital copies of books.  At least that DRM so far isn't nearly as extreme as this EA stuff, nothing like saying 'only 3 uses, only 2 people' etc..., but they do limit it to a specific device or program and what not. You can read this book as many times as you want, let others read it too, so long as you do it on our 500 dollar device.  Don't get me wrong, I love my kindle despite all this, I read books once and never again, and I don't go around selling used books even when I read an actual tangible one, so it don't really bother me so long as it goes no further than limiting me to the device.  Plus, not all books are DRM'd and I can get books from any source I want and put them on the Kindle, even if I got them for free, off the net, or from a competitor.  Heh, boy, how sad is it that I'm actually happy about how relatively little my rights are being dictated to me by a private party?  EA is the devil that makes all the otherwise would be devils look like angels. hehe.

They also do this to us, because they believe it would prefent the priates from cracking it. Who cares about the thoughts of a paying customers? - They have payed the money they wanted so they don't need to care about them anymore.

I have read something about a more user-friendly SecuROM in Sacred 2. It still uses forced online-connection for the installation and some kind of limited installations. These limits can be compared with the DRM of iTunes. You have 2 limits, but if you uninstall the game you will get one back. Well that what they say.

Back to EA's version:

- They said that it will check the hardware-settings to identify the PC. So, you can install it on a limited number of PC as often as you want, as long as you don't change more than one hardware in this PC.

Really? They force you to disable your antivirus?!

That's about as paranoid as you can get. Not to mention utterly stupid. Nobody should be forced to disable their antivirus for any reason whatsoever. In fact, you should probably call Norton and tell them legit software is trying to disable their antivirus software.

Looks like their DRM is already broken. I've said it before and I'll say it again: DRM does not work. All major forms of DRM have been cracked. Not to mention you were a completely legitimate user forced to look like a crack!

It's sad to see that DRM is ruining the experience for legit users. The pirates, on the other hand, are getting away scott free because they know where to find and get cracks.

Let me be blunt: DRM punishes legit users and has zero effect on pirates.

That's just the plain truth. Doesn't matter how well-intentioned anybody is. It's not working.

They believe wrong. The pirates are cracking it, and will continue cracking it for the forseeable future. It's a cat and mouse game that the DRM authors will never, ever win. Not with current computer architechture.

Looks like a stylesheet from a poorly designed HTML/CSS editor. It's a testament to why I'll never. ever use a WYSIWYG editor to create web pages.

Not to mention you were a completely legitimate user forced to look like a crack!

Worse, you are an person who's inexperienced with piracy 'forced' to engage in it. Which means you have a much better chance of being caught than a real pirate.  Your ISP gives you one warning when you are caught, and if you do it again your internet access is cut off.  Permananently. That's the best outcome... there is also a very low chance that you'll be sued to be made an example out of.

No, it doesn't matter if you have a legit copy of the game and are merely looking to make it work... according to the law, you are just as guilty as a person looking to commit theft.  EA's surrogates did not write that law that way by accident.