If UBI's DRM scheme is unacceptable...

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

So, if i loose my IL2 DVD, i can contant Ubi and they absolutely have to send me a new one, right? After all, i still have the license i paid for, don't i?
I guess you see how this is just a "whatever suits us in each separate case" attitude by certain companies

In most cases that would be a satifactory arrangement and should be possible, dependant on certain conditions being met. I also believe it should be allowable to burn a copy for back up purposes... but, thanks to pirates and their antics, they seem tohave $#%^%$# that up for everybody else.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I don't necessarily disagree with this. Like i said before, i support some form of copy protection to delay the inevitable. What i don't support is poorly thought out DRM, which is usually a fancy way to say "people who don't pay actually play a leaner and better working version of the same game as the legitimate customer".

The main criteria about copy protection are the following:
1) Does it work for long enough to help the devs turn a profit?
2) Does it work in a way that doesn't make the pirated version even more attractive (ie, by inconveniencing the legitimate buyer)?
3) If it is a hassle to the legitimate customer, does it at least come with some added value features to offset that and will it be tuned down a notch as sales decrease over time?

That's all there is to it really. Any method of DRM/copy protection/whatever we like to call it that doesn't answer yes on 2 out of 3 is a failed method.

we seem to be saying a similar thing there.
So, what would the problem be with online activation/ online uninstall/ limited activations (contact developer/ publisher for approval for more in the case of activations being burnt through accidentally, being possible) and an online verification for each and every time a user makes a connection to a multiplayer server, a verification check for update/ patch?

[T}{OR]

Some people need to redefine their way of thinking. I am all into protecting developer's work etc. But...

The mistake here is to believe that any software (publicly released) can be protected at all. Operating systems, and all software that is wide spread gets hacked in a mater of hours, even minutes. Forcing a protection that will bring unnecessary problems to the legit customers equals shooting yorself in the foot. More so, todays software gets hacked even before you can buy it of the shelves. In plain and simple words - it is a loosing battle in which (if you turn to the intrusive and hated DRM) we could end up with a hassle-free product for the pirates and those using pirated copies.

It is time to get real. There are many many other options for making a game more appealing to the legit buyers than pirates. Be it with quality product overall, regular patches or updates & add-ons, or via some other stuff that rocks their boat. Fortunately (via stuff shown) Oleg knows this - game map and Spitfire manual anyone?

A good example (like others stated already) is the latest StarCraft 2. Haven't played it myself but the philosophy there is what is already showing as the way forward.

Thus my money goes on the one time activation for this particular piece of software. We should know in a month time.

[6S.Manu]

I love Steam.. it's true that the application is a little buggy and the game are REALLY expensive (I prefer to buy on play.com) but you can easily find special offers (I bought more 10 games this Xmas, between 5€ and 10€ each, and I bought some games as gift for other persons).

There's the friend list system who works very well; it's like to have hyperlobby but actually you can chat with them even if they are playing yet (in any game).

The results list that is inserted in almost every Steam game is challenging and it will pushes you to play different roles in the game (I'm playing with my friends to reach the 100% in L4D2, probably in IL2:CoD there will be results as fighter and bomber like "kill a 109 at 7km", "land without elevators in a He111", "kill 5 He111 in a single mission" and so on)

And the last one is that Steam autopatches the game automatically and when you backup the game on an external HD you don't need to install the patches again and again.

It's all very simple; the only games who has issues were Mass Effect (fixed disabling the In-Game function of Steam) and Mount & Blade: Warband (fixed in 4 hours by Steam itself).

About account stealing: I haven't experienced that (and I've 2 accounts), but I don't think it will be a problem. I'm more scared about my gmail account (at least there are no sensible information in Steam, there is no privacy issue since there are no data if not the game list).

[addman]

Interesting reasoning going on here. Some claim DRM is a way for the publishers to control how the people play, how does that make ANY sense from ANY perspective?LOL! I don't now wether to laugh or cry at the DRM haters, I'll mention a few common "anti-DRM" arguments:

1. I don't have a stable internet connection so I can't play if I'm offline.
In this case that argument flies right out the door since it seems the game only requires online ACTIVATION. I presume most of you know what activation means. Now, IF the game will need to be AUTHENTICATED online whilst playing it then it might be a problem for some people. Now, in most developed countries even the slowest DSL connection is stable enough, I have an 8Mbit DSL connection and it drops about 1 time/2 months, I restart the modem ca 10-20 sec and it works again. If you are living in a developing country then I can see some issues of course.

2. I want to be able to play the game on the go (offline).
Hmm, who plays a flightsim "on the go"? I sometimes bring my Nintendo DS or PSP around on trips or whatever but even those are cumbersome and especially the PSP takes a good time to load some games. So if you are on a business trip or something you actually bring your huge-*ss gaming laptop with you? You're gonna need a joystick, where do you put your HOTAS or even a "smaller" joystick? in your back pocket? They won't even fit in a small suitcase! Ok, presume you DO bring all that stuff with you on your trips, most hotels (even cheaper ones) have free Wlan.

There are more arguments of course. Why is there DRM? To scare off customers? I don't think so, customers=€. DRM exists because of rampant piracy. Piracy has basically destroyed the Sony PSP and the Nintendo DS and it's not helping PC gaming by any means. The XBox 360 and the PS3 gets firmware updates regularely that makes sure you don't have a hardware modified consoles. Also, if you want to be able to play Call of Duty: Black Ops online -most people play it online- you need a valid copy. Latest is that security loopholes in the PS3 hardware/software have been discovered by some self-justified hacker group. They claim -of course- that it's good for those who want to use homebrew apps on their PS3 but we all know what the reason really is.

Point is, DRM is there to protect from piracy so that the games will generate enough profit for a + figure on the publishers/developers accounts so that they may CONTINUE to produce and publish games. Those of you who don't like DRM, fine! don't buy the game and don't play the game. You might as well stop posting on this forum since you wont play the game when it's released -what's the point really?-. As for me, I'm gonna get the "edition for the few", install it and play it for -hopefully- many years to come. DRM doesn't bother me in any way, but that's just me and this is me being subjective

[=Kike=]

Originally Posted by addman

Interesting reasoning going on here. Some claim DRM is a way for the publishers to control how the people play, how does that make ANY sense from ANY perspective?LOL! I don't now wether to laugh or cry at the DRM haters, I'll mention a few common "anti-DRM" arguments:

1. I don't have a stable internet connection so I can't play if I'm offline.
In this case that argument flies right out the door since it seems the game only requires online ACTIVATION. I presume most of you know what activation means. Now, IF the game will need to be AUTHENTICATED online whilst playing it then it might be a problem for some people. Now, in most developed countries even the slowest DSL connection is stable enough, I have an 8Mbit DSL connection and it drops about 1 time/2 months, I restart the modem ca 10-20 sec and it works again. If you are living in a developing country then I can see some issues of course.

2. I want to be able to play the game on the go (offline).
Hmm, who plays a flightsim "on the go"? I sometimes bring my Nintendo DS or PSP around on trips or whatever but even those are cumbersome and especially the PSP takes a good time to load some games. So if you are on a business trip or something you actually bring your huge-*ss gaming laptop with you? You're gonna need a joystick, where do you put your HOTAS or even a "smaller" joystick? in your back pocket? They won't even fit in a small suitcase! Ok, presume you DO bring all that stuff with you on your trips, most hotels (even cheaper ones) have free Wlan.

There are more arguments of course. Why is there DRM? To scare off customers? I don't think so, customers=€. DRM exists because of rampant piracy. Piracy has basically destroyed the Sony PSP and the Nintendo DS and it's not helping PC gaming by any means. The XBox 360 and the PS3 gets firmware updates regularely that makes sure you don't have a hardware modified consoles. Also, if you want to be able to play Call of Duty: Black Ops online -most people play it online- you need a valid copy. Latest is that security loopholes in the PS3 hardware/software have been discovered by some self-justified hacker group. They claim -of course- that it's good for those who want to use homebrew apps on their PS3 but we all know what the reason really is.

Point is, DRM is there to protect from piracy so that the games will generate enough profit for a + figure on the publishers/developers accounts so that they may CONTINUE to produce and publish games. Those of you who don't like DRM, fine! don't buy the game and don't play the game. You might as well stop posting on this forum since you wont play the game when it's released -what's the point really?-. As for me, I'm gonna get the "edition for the few", install it and play it for -hopefully- many years to come. DRM doesn't bother me in any way, but that's just me and this is me being subjective

+1

[Blackdog_kt]

What you proposed is a bit too dependent on the internet for my taste (being online to uninstall mainly, the rest i find acceptable), others may find it ok though and it's still better than a constant connectivity requirement.

I actually outlined my idea of how an online activated version could work with minimal hassle for the player, which to be honest is not my idea that much. It's actually based on the way Starcraft 2 works with a small but important change tailored to the importance of single player mode for many flight simmers.

What you do with SC2 is create a free battlenet account, tie your CD-key to it and login with this account when you run it.
However, if your internet access is disabled you get the option to enable offline mode.

Advantages:
1) Easy, one time activation. No limited activation/deactivation business, rootkits or registry keys that monitor your PC components and stop working the time you install a hardware upgrade because the key doesn't match with your latest hardware components.
2) You can download the installation files by logging into your battlenet account even if you don't have the physical installation disk at hand or because you want to install on a different PC.
3) You can log in with your account from other PCs than your own (eg, when playing against friends in a LAN party or contest).
4) You can play against the AI when the internet is down (clarification on this below however).

Disadvantages:
1) Everything multiplayer goes through battlenet, meaning i could be playing against a person in the same room and still have lag. There's no direct LAN support in order to prevent people from totally sidestepping the authentication, but this is worked on. A proposed solution is to connect to battlenet first for authentication, then revert to LAN mode once the players are invited into the game lobby.
2) You can't activate if your internet is down for whatever reason.
3) In order to enable offline mode you first need to connect on game start-up. Yes, you first need to go online each time before offline mode is available, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose of it if you are on an extended downtime.

Number 3 is my main gripe with it (it's actually pretty stupid the way it works in that regard), but i ended up buying the game because all i do with it is multiplayer with and against some friends, among ourselves or online on battlenet.

So why did i buy it if i dislike DRM so much? The answer is that it's far from a perfect system but it works well enough for what i want to do.This is also a very important factor when considering DRM, how do you intend to play the game?
If i was interested primarily in the single player mode, then i would find it unacceptable having to connect on each game launch. However, SC2 just like the original SC is mainly a multiplayer game. It has a nice storyline and amazing cutscenes in the single player campaign, but you can burn through it within a week tops. The real value of the game lies in its well-balanced unit mix that creates a highly dynamic rock-paper-scissors type of multiplayer.

However, since flight sims have a strong single player component and Oleg Maddox said himself that 80% of IL2's sales were offline players even if they had access to the internet, if we copied SC2's system we'd have to make sure the people who fly offline and/or lack access to the internet due to travelling/work/etc are not getting shut out, because this translates directly to lost sales amid the 80% the offliners constitute.

What i would do for SoW is copy SC2's system almost verbatim with two small but important changes:
1) Having a single authentication server in place of battlenet. No need for the publisher to handle all the multiplayer network traffic and pay the associated bills, when just an integrated, in-game server browser similar to Hyperlobby would be enough.
2) Validate the game online on each launch, but only as long as an internet connection is already present. If no internet connection is available but the installation is already activated, skip straight to the offline mode. And if you are really worried about people exploiting this to share their cd-keys, make it expire after one month. One log-in needed per month would be manageable even for people who travel a lot and play on gaming laptops, or those who suffer connection problems.

The bottom line is that all these big publishing companies are not stupid. If we make it clear that their games won't sell well if they ship with troublesome features, they will change them sooner or later and come up with something clever enough to protect the game without making it a pain to use for the legitimate buyers. You are the customer, you can demand the inclusion of a few things that work in your convenience's favor


Anyway, i think i've said more than enough on this issue and made my point as clear as it can be made. I'm out of this thread, thanks for keeping it civil everyone

[Wolf_Rider]

+2

[addman]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

What you proposed is a bit too dependent on the internet for my taste (being online to uninstall mainly, the rest i find acceptable), others may find it ok though and it's still better than a constant connectivity requirement.

I actually outlined my idea of how an online activated version could work with minimal hassle for the player, which to be honest is not my idea that much. It's actually based on the way Starcraft 2 works with a small but important change tailored to the importance of single player mode for many flight simmers.

What you do with SC2 is create a free battlenet account, tie your CD-key to it and login with this account when you run it.
However, if your internet access is disabled you get the option to enable offline mode.

Advantages:
1) Easy, one time activation. No limited activation/deactivation business, rootkits or registry keys that monitor your PC components and stop working the time you install a hardware upgrade because the key doesn't match with your latest hardware components.
2) You can download the installation files by logging into your battlenet account even if you don't have the physical installation disk at hand or because you want to install on a different PC.
3) You can log in with your account from other PCs than your own (eg, when playing against friends in a LAN party or contest).
4) You can play against the AI when the internet is down (clarification on this below however).

Disadvantages:
1) Everything multiplayer goes through battlenet, meaning i could be playing against a person in the same room and still have lag. There's no direct LAN support in order to prevent people from totally sidestepping the authentication, but this is worked on. A proposed solution is to connect to battlenet first for authentication, then revert to LAN mode once the players are invited into the game lobby.
2) You can't activate if your internet is down for whatever reason.
3) In order to enable offline mode you first need to connect on game start-up. Yes, you first need to go online each time before offline mode is available, which pretty much defeats the whole purpose of it if you are on an extended downtime.

Number 3 is my main gripe with it (it's actually pretty stupid the way it works in that regard), but i ended up buying the game because all i do with it is multiplayer with and against some friends, among ourselves or online on battlenet.

So why did i buy it if i dislike DRM so much? The answer is that it's far from a perfect system but it works well enough for what i want to do.This is also a very important factor when considering DRM, how do you intend to play the game?
If i was interested primarily in the single player mode, then i would find it unacceptable having to connect on each game launch. However, SC2 just like the original SC is mainly a multiplayer game. It has a nice storyline and amazing cutscenes in the single player campaign, but you can burn through it within a week tops. The real value of the game lies in its well-balanced unit mix that creates a highly dynamic rock-paper-scissors type of multiplayer.

However, since flight sims have a strong single player component and Oleg Maddox said himself that 80% of IL2's sales were offline players even if they had access to the internet, if we copied SC2's system we'd have to make sure the people who fly offline and/or lack access to the internet due to travelling/work/etc are not getting shut out, because this translates directly to lost sales amid the 80% the offliners constitute.

What i would do for SoW is copy SC2's system almost verbatim with two small but important changes:
1) Having a single authentication server in place of battlenet. No need for the publisher to handle all the multiplayer network traffic and pay the associated bills, when just an integrated, in-game server browser similar to Hyperlobby would be enough.
2) Validate the game online on each launch, but only as long as an internet connection is already present. If no internet connection is available but the installation is already activated, skip straight to the offline mode. And if you are really worried about people exploiting this to share their cd-keys, make it expire after one month. One log-in needed per month would be manageable even for people who travel a lot and play on gaming laptops, or those who suffer connection problems.

The bottom line is that all these big publishing companies are not stupid. If we make it clear that their games won't sell well if they ship with troublesome features, they will change them sooner or later and come up with something clever enough to protect the game without making it a pain to use for the legitimate buyers. You are the customer, you can demand the inclusion of a few things that work in your convenience's favor


Anyway, i think i've said more than enough on this issue and made my point as clear as it can be made. I'm out of this thread, thanks for keeping it civil everyone

+1
One time activation should be "doable" for most people. Constant authentication might be a problem for some. Should that be the consensus?

[csThor]

Originally Posted by addman

Why is there DRM? To scare off customers? I don't think so, customers=€. DRM exists because of rampant piracy.

That's smokescreen-talk. To counter piracy a working copy protection would be sufficient. DRM is about tying customers to the publisher, introduce more and more stringent DRM schemes and pay-DLCs, prepare the way for true cloud-computing and ultimately force pay-to-play (even if called "club membership fee" to ease the public outcry) for any kind of game. This is what DRM is about - it's about introducing various new ways of squeezing even more money out of customers, money which will flow to the Publisher alone and which will not be used to develop better games. And this is why I believe DRM is inacceptable while copy protection is.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by addman

Interesting reasoning going on here. Some claim DRM is a way for the publishers to control how the people play, how does that make ANY sense from ANY perspective?LOL! I don't now wether to laugh or cry at the DRM haters, I'll mention a few common "anti-DRM" arguments:

1. I don't have a stable internet connection so I can't play if I'm offline.
In this case that argument flies right out the door since it seems the game only requires online ACTIVATION. I presume most of you know what activation means. Now, IF the game will need to be AUTHENTICATED online whilst playing it then it might be a problem for some people. Now, in most developed countries even the slowest DSL connection is stable enough, I have an 8Mbit DSL connection and it drops about 1 time/2 months, I restart the modem ca 10-20 sec and it works again. If you are living in a developing country then I can see some issues of course.

2. I want to be able to play the game on the go (offline).
Hmm, who plays a flightsim "on the go"? I sometimes bring my Nintendo DS or PSP around on trips or whatever but even those are cumbersome and especially the PSP takes a good time to load some games. So if you are on a business trip or something you actually bring your huge-*ss gaming laptop with you? You're gonna need a joystick, where do you put your HOTAS or even a "smaller" joystick? in your back pocket? They won't even fit in a small suitcase! Ok, presume you DO bring all that stuff with you on your trips, most hotels (even cheaper ones) have free Wlan.

There are more arguments of course. Why is there DRM? To scare off customers? I don't think so, customers=€. DRM exists because of rampant piracy. Piracy has basically destroyed the Sony PSP and the Nintendo DS and it's not helping PC gaming by any means. The XBox 360 and the PS3 gets firmware updates regularely that makes sure you don't have a hardware modified consoles. Also, if you want to be able to play Call of Duty: Black Ops online -most people play it online- you need a valid copy. Latest is that security loopholes in the PS3 hardware/software have been discovered by some self-justified hacker group. They claim -of course- that it's good for those who want to use homebrew apps on their PS3 but we all know what the reason really is.

Point is, DRM is there to protect from piracy so that the games will generate enough profit for a + figure on the publishers/developers accounts so that they may CONTINUE to produce and publish games. Those of you who don't like DRM, fine! don't buy the game and don't play the game. You might as well stop posting on this forum since you wont play the game when it's released -what's the point really?-. As for me, I'm gonna get the "edition for the few", install it and play it for -hopefully- many years to come. DRM doesn't bother me in any way, but that's just me and this is me being subjective

+1