Game Protection: Where do you draw the line?

[CrossLOPER]

***Mods, please move this to the Arena if it belongs there. Thanks.***

Since the Starforce fiasco, I've been wary of what I buy. In 2006 I came the conclusion that purchasing games with Starforce is not worth it. This decision has removed only a handful of games that I would have otherwise potentially played.

For a time, I tolerated games with SecuROM, SafeDisk and other similar protections. Now I think I might just add SecuROM to my list of implemented game protections that I will be avoiding. Obviously, this strikes out quite a few games that have been release in the past eight years or so.

Why SecuROM? It is generally agreed that SecuROM is no where near as bad as Starforce. However, like other protection software, SecuROM has the potential to severely mess with your computer. Fallout 3's implementation, for instance, somewhat dictates what you can and can't have on your HD. I find this unreasonable.

I just wanted to know where others draw the line. Steam? Starforce? LaserLock?

I might not be buying Fallout 3...

[caravel]

I'd draw the line at anything more than an alphanumeric key and perhaps a CDROM that needs to be in the drive in order for the game to start.

[TevashSzat]

I am fine with anything that will discourage "casual" pirates, ie borrowing a friend's disc to install it on your comp and then try to either burn the DVD or something like that. So, CD keys, CD checks, and measures to prevent simple copying of the CD/DVD is fine by me.

Anything more complicated than that is just too much trouble. The fact is, the reason why PC gaming is so distinct from console gaming is because the PC is an open platform. Fans can create mods and change content with or without the blessing of the developer (ie developer released mod tools). That same manner also makes it easy for any determined cracker to get out a cdkey generator, a cd check bypasser, or anything else like that. Unless game companies somehow find a way to make it impossible for you to alter the game files or the files on the CD (which then, I will promptly finally buy a console for the first time), all anti-piracy measures will fail.

There are absolutely NO games out there, regardless of how stringent their copy protection is, that doesn't get released by the pirates in a week after the release. Odds are, the pirates will release the game before the official release simply because they may get access to reviewer copies or have inside sources at the fabrication factories or somewhat (which was how Fallout 3 for XBOX 360 got leaked like 2 weeks before its release)

Just to throw it out there. Apparently, the games released by Valve which have to use Steam have some of the lowest piracy rates out there even though they're hugely popular. Maybe some form of Steam would be the way to go?

[Martok]

I'd draw the line at anything more than an alphanumeric key and perhaps a CDROM that needs to be in the drive in order for the game to start.

That's more or less what I've always gone with....at least up to this point.

With the announcement that Empire Total War is using Steam, however, I'm not quite sure what to think. I've never used Steam before, and so I don't really know what to expect if I were to purchase ETW. On paper it sounds okay, but I've also heard complaints about Steam going back since its inception. Are these complaints legitimate? I honestly have no idea, and unfortunately I have no real frame of reference against which to compare it.

[TevashSzat]

I've never used Steam before, and so I don't really know what to expect if I were to purchase ETW. On paper it sounds okay, but I've also heard complaints about Steam going back since its inception. Are these complaints legitimate? I honestly have no idea, and unfortunately I have no real frame of reference against which to compare it.

What do you mean when it says going back since its inception?

Anyways, steam is basically you need an internet connection to initially play the game. Afterwards, though, you can go into offline mode unless you want to get a patch or something like that, which requires you to go online again with Steam.

The great thing about Steam is that your game is tied to your account, not to your computer. That means, you can install any of your games that you have bought on any computer as long as you have your steam account logged in

[PBI]

As I understand it the main criticism of Steam when it was first implemented in Half-Life 2 was the fact that it was not made sufficiently clear that you would need an internet connection to play a singleplayer game (and that game stores would not refund people who had bought the game not realizing this because the need for an internet connection was buried in the small print).

But surely so long as the need for an internet connection is written on the front in big letters, it's not such a problem? Unless there are some more fundamental issues with Steam itself that I am not aware of; if there are any, they certainly aren't as well publicized as the problems with SecuROM or Starforce.

Personally, I'm not aware of any reason to avoid Steam since, well, I clearly do have an internet connection. I don't much like SecuROM (especially the increasingly Draconian versions we have seen recently) and I doubt I will buy another game with it included.

[CrossLOPER]

That's more or less what I've always gone with....at least up to this point.

With the announcement that Empire Total War is using Steam, however, I'm not quite sure what to think. I've never used Steam before, and so I don't really know what to expect if I were to purchase ETW. On paper it sounds okay, but I've also heard complaints about Steam going back since its inception. Are these complaints legitimate? I honestly have no idea, and unfortunately I have no real frame of reference against which to compare it.

I've been using Steam for about two years. Really, there are very few complaints that I have about it. Valve has been good with its users. Occasionally, though, Valve has crossed the line and done things like insert ads into the multiplayer games and shutdown service to certain users for a bit. Steam also malfunctions about once or twice a year and decides to take a nap, leaving you with time to catch up on your reading.

However, I fear that I will never play any Steam game again if Valve goes under and takes Steam with it. I heard Yahoo music left its users with a raw deal, and I think Valve could do the same. That being said, I doubt my future Steam purchases will go beyond Empire and Half-Life 2: Ep. 3 in the future.

[naut]

Well, reading that extract it's not so much the SecuROM component they added as the fact that they lied.

[pevergreen]

Various quotes from my assignment:

The use of SecuROM is highly controversial because certain aspects of the protection are similar to functions of malware. So, you may ask, what does secuROM actually do? Some versions of SecuROM, particularly older 2.x versions, may silently install a shell extension that prevents Windows Explorer from deleting 16-bit executables. secuROM 7.x also prevents any of the games running if certain Microsoft programs have been run since reboot.

"This low-level access to the operating system has led to an accusation that SecuROM has access to Ring 0, providing direct access to the kernel. EA is currently being taken to court over the use of this DRM system in Spore. However, officially SecuROM only has access to Ring 3 of Windows, which contains normal applications.”


I have been against steam since it was introduced, but was forced to use it to play Portal. And it is actually ok. It seems to have changed much over the years, I will still get ETW. secuROM, i've never had a problem with, so I will continue to use products which contain it, until I do have a problem.

[Mikeus Caesar]

From my experience, the only good kinds of DRM are the following:

Steam

And the Stardock way i.e none at all.

As for the worries about Steam, and not being able to access your games if Valve went under (which i don't see happening anytime soon, as they go from strength to strength), Valve are a kind and benevolent company compared to the vast majority. They're up there just below Stardock in the ranks of 'companies that actually care for their customers'. Just looking at the huge amounts of patches they constantly release should be a signal. Even the add-ons for TF2 are rather unnecessarily elaborate, which is a good thing. Basically, if they did go under, their last action would probably be to upload a patch on Steam freeing everyone from Steam.

[Ramses II CP]

I have no issues with Steam. It isn't what I'd want for copy protection, but it works, it stays out of your way, it doesn't cause lag in game, and the content available is pretty good. I think Valve has provided sufficient advantages to balance out the disadvantages of their system.

I don't buy SecuRom or Starforce games, period. Won't buy any of the other invasive, dangerous copy protection schemes either. It's as much a moral issue as a worry over my data, I think supporting bad copy protection schemes is shameful.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

My main issue with steam is the actual program itself is very, very slow in starting and running. It must be grotesquely inefficient somewhere, probably where it tries to be a browser.

[JR-]

i am most angered by DRM schemes that require online authentication. i bought the product, not rented it, and being heholden to some server to be able to use my product disgusts me.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

It's still a concern that I can only play the game I paid for, while Steam is around. Maybe Steam itself would release some sort of unlock crack if worst comes to worst and no other company takes over. I recall some companies have some release day protection and remove that with one of the official patches. It's to fight day zero piracy, a neat policy I think.

The real problem I had with Steam in the past was that it was quite resource hungry and leaking memory, even while doing nothing.

Installing sneaky software that hurts hardware or system performance and a limited amount of activations is pretty nasty in my books. There are also claims that rub me the wrong way: 'we do this to artificially age the product, as it doesn't wear like other goods (too much value on the used item market)'. Like I play rough with other stuff I have and throw it away within a year (all my books, CD's and movies are nearly new and fully functional even after decades). I also think that this says something about the attitude of some gamedevelopers: make a game that pleases for a few months and then forget about it. While that might be the reality with some customers, the aim should be higher.

[Husar]

So, what if Microsoft went bankrupt then or did you all pirate your copies of XP enterprise edition or something?

[caravel]

That is really verging on "apples and oranges". Windows is the OS, which is a very different thing to a game. The OS industry is one that demands such long term support, unlike games. OSs often run mission critical apps whereas a game is simply a form of entertainment.

Games developers have a history of being much more volatile: Including; going bust, being bought out, changing publisher, dropping support, releasing only a certain number of patches etc. In fact when it comes to placing a bet on either a games developer supporting my game a few years down the line or MS supporting one of their OSs then I'd have to (reluctantly) go with MS every time. Also touching on games developers changing publisher - this often involves difficulty in finding/downloading patches and multiplayer servers going offline.

[Ramses II CP]

It is apples and oranges. The trouble with invasive game copy protection schemes is that they co-opt priveleges which are supposed to be reserved for the OS, ergo for an OS copy protection scheme to be invasive it would have to go even deeper (Require permanant access to your bank account?). If you bought a house and your insurer insisted on an inspection first you wouldn't complain, but if you bought a book and Borders insisted on inspecting your house before you placed it on your shelves you'd pitch a fit. And you'd be right.

[Spartan198]

I am fine with anything that will discourage "casual" pirates, ie borrowing a friend's disc to install it on your comp and then try to either burn the DVD or something like that. So, CD keys, CD checks, and measures to prevent simple copying of the CD/DVD is fine by me.

Yeah, that's pretty much my answer right there.

[pevergreen]

It is apples and oranges. The trouble with invasive game copy protection schemes is that they co-opt priveleges which are supposed to be reserved for the OS, ergo for an OS copy protection scheme to be invasive it would have to go even deeper (Require permanant access to your bank account?). If you bought a house and your insurer insisted on an inspection first you wouldn't complain, but if you bought a book and Borders insisted on inspecting your house before you placed it on your shelves you'd pitch a fit. And you'd be right.

Thanks for providing another quote from my assignment

[Husar]

That is really verging on "apples and oranges". Windows is the OS, which is a very different thing to a game. The OS industry is one that demands such long term support, unlike games. OSs often run mission critical apps whereas a game is simply a form of entertainment.

That would make it even worse if Microsoft went bankrupt.

Games developers have a history of being much more volatile: Including; going bust, being bought out, changing publisher, dropping support, releasing only a certain number of patches etc. In fact when it comes to placing a bet on either a games developer supporting my game a few years down the line or MS supporting one of their OSs then I'd have to (reluctantly) go with MS every time. Also touching on games developers changing publisher - this often involves difficulty in finding/downloading patches and multiplayer servers going offline.

That was my argument back when everybody and their mother complained about XP requiring online activation but I was told it was way too invasive nonetheless/matter of principle etc.

It is apples and oranges. The trouble with invasive game copy protection schemes is that they co-opt priveleges which are supposed to be reserved for the OS, ergo for an OS copy protection scheme to be invasive it would have to go even deeper (Require permanant access to your bank account?). If you bought a house and your insurer insisted on an inspection first you wouldn't complain, but if you bought a book and Borders insisted on inspecting your house before you placed it on your shelves you'd pitch a fit. And you'd be right.

So when a game connects online to phone home that is way too invasive because going online is a priviledge reserved for the OS? Have you ever played a multiplayer game? Or maybe you missed my point as I was only talking about online activation, not starforce or anything like that.

[Fragony]

I have already drawn the line at having to install steam to play Half-Life 2. The last pc-game I bought.

[Ramses II CP]

That would make it even worse if Microsoft went bankrupt.


That was my argument back when everybody and their mother complained about XP requiring online activation but I was told it was way too invasive nonetheless/matter of principle etc.


So when a game connects online to phone home that is way too invasive because going online is a priviledge reserved for the OS? Have you ever played a multiplayer game? Or maybe you missed my point as I was only talking about online activation, not starforce or anything like that.

Sorry, but we clearly did have a misunderstanding; accessing information online is in no way reserved for your OS. In point of fact a large majority of modern applications do so. If you were only referring to online activation then I don't see the relevance because you can relatively easily install XP (I haven't done a Vista install) without ever connecting to the 'net. It supposedly 'requires' online activation only as another silly MS hoop you have to jump through.