But again, the Riddick DRM (a flavor of TAGES, I think) makes even that simple disclosure problematic.
Riddick has N activations, but every month one of your activations is restored (so it just means you can't install it on N+1 computers in single month). How would that be described, because that information (after finally finding it) means that I am buying Dark Athena next time it is on sale.
I think newer flavors of activation-model securom automatically deauthorize when you uninstall. That is something that I wouldn't mind knowing, because I hate having to run the seperate de-auth tool.
What the hell does Stardock and GOO count as? It is technically an (optional) activation model, but let's see you get patches for most of your games without authenticating.
Hell, what does Dragon Age count as? The actual DRM is just a disc check (I think), but then you have the DLC-based DRM that hooks people.
Starforce versus Safedisc. Technically, those two are both just disc-checks. But I suspect people would prefer to know if it was a Starforce game.
Starforce has a few different names these days. I think their activation-model based one is branded under a different name.
Then you have FADE, which was just hilarious because it meant people couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in OFP and had free moneys in Darkstar One.
Can you see how this section is starting to get pretty long and problematic?
That is why I think that the most important thing to put on the box is "Internet connection required" (or preferably, "Internet connection required for activation", which is what I care about) if it is required (because of DRM), and I think games already do that. Beyond this, the only real concerns are the kinds of DRM, and that tends to mostly matter to people who already do research.
As opposed to the no-brainer aspect: Look at any forum talking about Dark Messiah. People who are even more arachnophobic than me are always freaking out about all the spiders in Dark Messiah. Wouldn't they object to not having those listed?
There is only so much room on the box.
and barley: The important thing as far as sysreqs go would be the internet connection required. Beyond that, if someone doesn't have an internet connection, I really doubt they are in the militant-ly anti-DRM group, and tend to just be concerned about the actual internet connection requirement (which is already listed, I think :p). And, I hate to say it, but people with no internet are no longer really a concern, period. It sucks for them, but in this era of patches and DLC, they just aren't a large enough minority to matter. Same with how devs have stopped caring about trying to get games to work with WinXP.
Hate to double-post, but I don't want to edit any post containing a quote (it kills the post), and I think it is important I say this:
I actually am all for putting more information regarding DRM on the boxes. I just don't think it is practical, and it will always be one of the following:
A pointless knee-jerk reaction where people get angry at one DRM and force it to be labeled specifically
WAY too convoluted and consume even more of the already precious box-art space.

Putting a "warning label" on the box is exactly what they should have doing all along. A simple "This game uses XXX copy protection. For more information go to www.somewebsite.com". We are not talking about taking up a ton of precious artistic real estate on the box to explain the minutia of what the copy protection does, just explain that the game has some form of copy protection on it, period. That's a damn sight better than sneaky underhanded methods they have been using lately where they don't tell you anything until after you have already spent your hard-earned money on the product.
BTW - If the box is only for artistic purposes, then why have things like system requirements, reviewer quotes, studio logos, copyright statements, etc. on the outside of the box? Because the box is not there for aesthetic reasons, it is just advertising. It is there to provide the consumer with information and incentive to buy the game; information like what draconian DRM scheme they may have saddled the game with. It is no more artistic than the box your breakfast cereal comes in, with its nutritional facts and ingredients lists printed on the outside.

Cracking EA shit will be easier thus....

Think it is about time companies started doing this i have bought a number of games over the years only to have them fail thank to the copy protection at least with EA telling us what copy protection is and how to get rid of it is a step forward. I hate DRM dont think many of us do but i hate most of all the invisable ones that buries itself into the system core and can cause nothing but problems.

I guess we feel that boxes serve different purposes. I like to almost put my boxes on display. As it stands, I feel that boxes are already far too covered in blurbs and awards (even at release...). Especially since they switched to those DVD case things.
And okay, let's just say we put a sticker that says "This game uses Securom copy protection". Okay:
1. Who does that actually help? Anyone who hasn't already researched DRM won't even know what Securom is.
2. What flavor of Securom? Contrary to popular belief, Securom has been around for something like 10 years (if not longer). And it still exists in a purely disc-check form. So wouldn't that be false advertising?
3. Can you see how a massive "WARNING!" sticker could hurt sales? Even the people who don't care about DRM will be terrified.
I am all for more disclosure and the like, but I just don't think the box is the place to put it. It is the same reason that commercials for drugs say to talk to your doctor, rather than spout off a few dozen minutes worth of health concerns and the like. You get the important stuff: "This medicine for upset stomachs may cause nausea, diarrhea, headaches, and upset stomach", but you don't get all the nuanced detail like "If taken with erectile dysfunction medicine, your junk may swell to four or five times its usual size." It just isn't the right venue, and there isn't really room for all the things people want to know.
Same thing here. Definitely give us more disclosure and let us find it VERY easily by going to the official website (or Steam and Impulse, where valid) but all that I feel should be on the box with regard to DRM is if an internet connection is required. This way, the really important stuff (can you play it) is on the box, but the things that are more a matter of principle and taste (do you want that on your system) are available for those who care.

Informing users that a game uses copy protection is just as important as informing users what are the minimum requirements, its that simple. You are getting too wrapped up in the details. This is not about giving everyone all the details of what DRM is on the game on the box (i.e. which version of SecuROM, which type of DRM check, etc.), it is about giving people the means to make an informed purchase. By putting a DRM statement that directs potential customers to a website with more information, they can do that: look at the box, hmmm, this says it has SecuROM... oh there's a website with more information, checking.... what? I can only install this game 5 times!? What do you mean I need to be connected to the internet to play, this is a single player game! Forget it, I'm not buying this crap!
It is not going to change anything in terms of sales to your average DRM ignorant gamer. The kind of people who don't care about DRM are the same kind of people who don't bother reading system requirements then end up buying a game they can't run on their hardware. They are not going to read the DRM information label anyway and will still buy the game. But at least some of them might actually read it and might make the effort yo become more informed about it. If that means they don't buy a game because it uses excessive DRM, that is a good thing. The more people who make that decision, the more likely it will be that publishers like EA will give up on invasive schemes like SecuROM.

I am satisfied with the system requirements that are required to be disclosed now, I am drawing the line at revealing spiders are in the game . . . just too unnecessary and beyond common sense. . .=)
But I would like to see, at the minimum, the following:
1 Type of DRM
2 Ver of DRM (some ver are acceptable to some ppl)
3 On-line connection required - yes or no
4 Off-line play is allowed - yes or no
5 # of installs allowed
Anyone that has a better list of minimum DRM disclosure ?
Edit for Gundato questions =) :
1 anyone who does not want SecuROM on their system
2 give me the version, I will decide if I want it on my system
3 Yes, it might hurt sales since an informed buyer is more selective. . . so
The box, any sales display - internet or otherwise and all adverts is the EXACT place to disclose something that could affect the purchase decision.
IT'S JUST NOT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT !!! . . . =)

But if we are dependent upon people going online to make an informed decision, why bother putting it on the box? And again, don't you think it would be important to distinguish between the flavors of Securom? Because otherwise, everyone will complain and ignore the fact that it is disc-check based Securom.
And again, what you are describing is the equivalent of a warning sticker. People tend to get concerned about those. It isn't really fair to anyone if a disc check has the same danger warnings as the activation model. And people don't read stickers, so they probably will just see "Wait, that looks bad. Screw this"
I fully agree, people need to make informed decisions. But the only information relevant to if the game will work or not (which is what is currently on the box) is whether or not the game requires an internet connection. Beyond that, people need to research things themselves. Hopefully said information can be more readily available in the future.
I get the feeling you are pretty anti-DRM. I am actually very anti-activation models and really wish boxes would list that information (well, websites at least). But you have to admit that there are multiple levels of DRM. A safedisc disc-check and a Steam-based activation aren't the same thing. As such, I just don't think it is really feasible or reasonable to go into all the nuances of DRM (which, really, don't matter to most people) on the box, when the important thing is if an internet connection is required.
If someone learns that they don't like activation-based models, they will become much more wary in the future. Any time they see "internet connection required", they'll do more research. If someone doesn't care, they won't. And if someone doesn't have an internet connection (the people who actually ARE screwed over by the filthy activation-based models), they will know not to buy the game. But either way, DRM is just too complex to really make a quick blurb and be fair.
All this would do is discourage publishers from using innovative DRMs, and everything will be Securom-based activation model (rather than the somewhat nifty TAGES one) and the like. Because you are going to be penalized the same way, regardless of how much you try and make the process painless. Same with Securom disc-check vs Securom activation vs Securom limited activation. If you are going to get a huge sticker either way, go for the one that is more effective.

lol . . . sorry . . .couldn't help it this sounds like something you would hear in a board meeting . . .=)
"If someone learns that they don't like activation-based models, they will become much more wary in the future. Any time they see "internet connection required", they'll do more research. If someone doesn't care, they won't. And if someone doesn't have an internet connection (the people who actually ARE screwed over by the filthy activation-based models), they will know not to buy the game. But either way, DRM is just too complex to really make a quick blurb and be fair."

The only important thing to you is the internet requirement. Obviously, that is not the only important thing to everyone, otherwise, this lawsuit never would have happened. Your argument for not including the additional information on the box could be applied to almost anything: taking too much cough medicine can be harmful? We don't need to tell people that, just put the dose requirements on the box, if they want to know more than that, they can figure it out for themselves. While having a game with DRM is certainly not as bad as OD'ing on NyQuil, it is still a responsibility of the game publisher to inform their potential customers of the possible negatives, just as it is for the pharmaceutical company making the cough medicine.
Am I anti-DRM? Only in that I have not yet seen a DRM scheme that was effective at doing anything more than interfering with the legitimate customers gaming experience. If someone were to come up with a DRM scheme that doesn't require internet connections, third-party software or limited activations, allows re-selling, doesn't adversely affect my system performance and, most important of all, actually prevented piracy, I would support it wholeheartedly. Until that actually happens, I guess I am anti-DRM.

I guess fair depends on your point of view?? I don't think it fair not to put the info on the box. At least with some form of disclosure the uninformed would realize there was a decision that might need to me made rather than nothing to indicate they may not be able to play the game due to [insert DRM reason here]. Having disclosure is better than not having the disclosure IMHO.
I am looking for simple disclosure on the box with a link for those who DO want to know more or how to remove it after playing the game. I think that is reasonable and a service to your customer.
Sorry . . . didn't mean to target you . . . just sounded so pro DRM . . . it hit my funny bone. Nothing wrong with that argument, just not one you hear from many (if any ) gamers. Actually, I don't think I have heard any defending DRM, I know you will correct me . . .=) Even stranger to hear someone defending DRM on a site established solely for the selling of DRM free games . . . which naturally attracts lots of folks who have suffered because of it . . . forgive me if made you feel like you are targeted . . my bad . . .=)
But . . . my point being . . . I don't see a problem with disclosure of DRM.

By that same token, the US Military needs to explicitly tell people learning how to use a multimeter that they can actually kill themselves by stabbing themselves in the heart with the probes (the current between the two probes can evidently be lethal if in a sufficiently low-resistance medium). Yeah, that is dangerous, and it allegedly came about because some moron did it. Can you see how not everything needs to be listed on boxes? :p
Same with a lot of other warning labels on over the counter medicine.
Same thing here. People care because they don't like Securom, same way they didn't like Starforce. But the most vocal people I have heard complaining about this are the ones who are so concerned about the people who don't have internet connections but still are fully informed on the DRM-debate.
You say to put a label on the box saying that people should go to a website to learn more. Can you see how that is not all that useful? If we are going to force them to go to a website, just skip the middle man. The only thing this accomplishes is increases the hysteria-factor (which may be the point, but isn't really fair to the people who just use Securom's disc-check method).
You say that people who don't have internet connections need to know, otherwise they can't play their games. I agree, so why not just tell them they need an internet connection and avoid going through all the nuances and details?
And Stuff is suggesting that VERY useful looking box. I actually agree, and would love something like that. But it just doesn't have enough info. It doesn't distinguish between how TAGES and Securom's methods work. it doesn't distinguish between Starforce's disc-check and Safedisc's disc-check. It doesn't distinguish between FADE and Safedisc. Because FADE has always been problematic for legitimate users to grab cracks to avoid needing discs (which is why I bought OFP here).
Everyone is complaining that people need to make informed decisions. I agree. But the subject is just too complicated to be put on a box. And besides, outside of Stuff's argument (which, I agree with, but feel it would take up too much box real-estate to actually be fair to all the different methods, and would need to be updated every year because a new kind of model needs to add another field to the box), this isn't letting people make informed decisions. This is telling people what one side of the argument wants them to know, and expecting them to research the other side's viewpoint.
Going back to warning labels: It would be like if an abstinence group got to label a condom box. They wouldn't put "99.9% effective" or whatever the actual number is. They would just put "Warning: You might still knock her up". It is true, and it is letting people make MORE informed decisions (and it might actually be a better label...), but it isn't actually making an informed decision. It is guiding them to make your decision.
And another magic edit that should not bugger things up.
Honestly, based upon the arguments made here, I think the solution we could ALL agree with would just be a single line. Something like
Securom 5.3131a
or
Securom 6.3b
or
Safedisc 9.5
or
TAGES 8.7
I mean, that lets people make the informed decision of having to google to know what is going on. And it lets those of us who are already informed make our decisions based on that. And it only takes up one line of box-space :p

I agree with all of the above as well
This is an old article but he made some good points about DRM. When it stops altering my system I will stop complaining about DRM too.

@Gundato (sorry, quoting in this thread is becoming a pain in the ass)
So because you think it is impossible to give everyone all the info they might need to make an informed decision on a game box, that we should instead give them nothing more than an "internet connection required" in the system reqs? At least by the proposed method consumers are given the option of finding out, if they want to, and a source to go looking for that info. No one is proposing that this label be biased in any way, it will not say "WARNING: This game has DRM!!!!", it will simply say "This game uses SecuROM DRM. For more information go to www.securom.com" A simple statement of fact that actually gives the consumer the most biased source for information about DRM on the planet. If anything, it is not anti-DRM at all, it almost a pro-DRM propagandist move.