DRM in DoW2?

[Pseudonymn]

With the SecuROM scandal [1] (http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=628724&forum=125) [2] (http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=629227&forum=125&sp=0) that is raging across Bioware's Mass Effect forums (and elsewhere, even everywhere seemingly) in the last week over their intended use of some truly onerous DRM schemes to "protect" us all from the villainous pirates, it's got me thinking about what might be down the road with DoW2.

The folks at Relic have always treated us to disc-free, unobtrusive protection schemes and I was wondering if they had plans to continue to treat us with the same respect and courtesy with DoW2. I sincerely hope that similarly outlandish DRM schemes like those proposed by EA's SecuROM-crippled MEPC and Spore franchises don't infiltrate their way into DoW2 and would like to be reassured of that here.

[threatcon_1]

IIRC they called back those securom measures and decided to choose something more reasonable (online cd-key validation I think but i'll have to look that up).

I've been pondering this for a while actually and what really is the best anti-piracy measure out there within a good margin of reason between not shafting the consumer and protecting the developer. Seriously i've got nothing when it comes to that but my poorly informed opinion may tell me that the best measure is online CD-key validation and/or having to log on like you do in Opposing Fronts.

The arguments for these kinds of measures(the ones i hear from people) is that some people do not always have persistent access to the internet to be able to log on all the time. My personal beef with this is autopatching though. Now I do not really know as to what extent this is effective since chances are the pirates could have circumvented this and have successfully cracked a system. Have they cracked the online validation system thing?

[Pseudonymn]

True, the 10-day reverification portion of the scheme was recalled, but the truly draconian bit is the maximum of 3 installs remains, with no option to revoke installs a la Bioshock. You have to get on the hook with EA's tech support if you want to authenticate installs over and above the maximum that they've provided for, which can cost (potentially) a boatload of money depending on where you live.

I have no problems with the CD key validation. I understand the need for that kind of thing in today's environment. It's just the max install issue and the fact that verification servers won't be supported forever, which gives me serious cause for pause when I consider that I may want to revisit a game in 10+ year's time (and I do play my older games from time to time). That's where the hang-up for me lies.

As far as cracking the authentication measures go, ask any information security specialist what the value of a security system is where the attacker has physical access to the protected media and he will immediately tell you just one thing: such a system has no value whatsoever. It's probably a safe bet that there isn't a game out there that didn't have cracks available within the first week or two of sales if, indeed, not sooner.

The question here is: what will Relic's approach to this issue be? Are they going to follow in EA's footsteps or do they have something else in mind?

[Akranadas]

I think Relic will stick to the system they put in place with Opposing Fronts via RelicOnline.

[Weavern]

I fully support something far more invasive cuppled with RelicOnline. Such as requiring the entire game to be activated with contact through reliconline. Piracy heavily hurt CoH, anything that ensures that the DoW franchise has healthier financial outlook can only be beneficial.

[LoneWolf666]

But then everyone offline will be screwed. Having to connect just to play a game is ridiculous.

[Akranadas]

Offline is done via SecuROM cd verification if I remember correctly.

[cannonfodder]

My personal $0.02 on the issue: it's not like CoH:OF's copy protection scheme wasn't cracked. Or Bioshock's (which was very akin to what EA is doing now) weren't either. Tight copy protection only hurts users who actually bought the game and have to put up with it; pirates will simply download the latest crack - which comes out in a week or two anyway.

Seriously, has anyone seen a game that wasn't pirated because it was "too hard to crack"? Doesn't this fact defeat the point somewhat?

[LoneWolf666]

Offline is done via SecuROM cd verification if I remember correctly.

So we're back to square one - cd shuffling? No real progress has of yet been made in the field of copy protection and it is highly doubtful there ever will be.

This helps explain the MMO boom - you don't pay, you don't play. Thankfully, not all games are MMOs, but this also means they cannot be successfully protected against piracy.

[Supernaut]

Theres no protection against DRM so why implement it.

Look at Sins of a Solar Empire, sold ~400,000 units in its first month according to its website, thats better than most big name PC games do in a year for christs sakes. It has no DRM and people still paid for it.

DRM just screws over people who do pay for it. Its less like you've purchased a game more like your renting it from the company. I should be able to install a game any amount of times on as many machines as I like but according to the terms and conditions what I bought isn't actually my property. =/

[Romanov77]

LOL, if relic would make such move, it can forget my money.

You know, I already cant barely stand to pay for a game that is unbalanced and bugged after 3 expansions and still left unpatched (hotfix my....)

Add a nice draconian protection like that and you have permanently lost a customer.....millions of them, to be correct.

It is wrong for the following reasons:

1) It would be a plain encouragement to piracy. no need to explain why.

2) pirates can and WILL bypass these worthless protections the same day dow2 released. JUST LIKE WITH EVERY GAME/SOFTWARE IN THE UNIVERSE.

So please Relic, invest money in quality and patches, instead of useless protections which will damage legit customers only.

[Antiloop]

Theres no protection against DRM so why implement it.
I think you meant to say that there is no protection from the use of DRM.
There is however a way to protect yourself against DRM. You simply don't buy products that are designed to shaft you with limited installs or some other mechanism designed to rob you.


Piracy heavily hurt CoH, anything that ensures that the DoW franchise has healthier financial outlook can only be beneficial.
Ah, yes. The "CoH was pirated untold milions of times" argument. Think I've seen that phrase at least a dozen times at these forums. It is never backed up by any factual numbers however. How about we compare the actual sales numbers for CoH and OF? Surely OF outsold CoH many times over, since it not only had a buttload of DRM, but also the advantages compared to CoH of a (near) global launch and cheaper retail price.
Anyone got the sales numbers?

[Noble]

Ok folks, this discussion is only tangentially related to DoW2. If you want to discuss DRM and the laws and practices surrounding it the general discussion forum (http://forums.relicnews.com/forumdisplay.php?f=29) would probably be the best place for that. Though, if anyone does decide to create a thread in that forum; I would advise extreme caution (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=5710#3).

Since this thread isn't really discussing Dawn of War 2, I'm going to lock it.