Thanks for the reply, Kurina, but as noted, BioShock still has the DRM. And I personally don't count it as removal if it's still tied to Steam. Other than that, while some games seem to have it removed, far, far more do not. So I hesitate to claim there's a trend underway yet.

I do agree with SV and others though, that if it became a standard to remove the DRM after a period of time, I'd never complain about it again. (Of course, i probably still wouldn't buy the game until the removal patch was released...)

Well, it still has Steam DRM. The retail copy is still the only way to have no DRM at all (unless you count a disc check).

I just googled it and the 1.5 patch added deauthorization when uninstalling or through the EA deauthorize tool, same as all their games got. It did not remove the DRM though.

The Steam version did have SecuROM removed but it still has Steam DRM, so it doesn't really count.

Yeah I was mistaken about that. Some sites seem to have reported it as being completely removed, not noting that it was merely the limits. My apologies for not researching the game more closely and just going on what I remember seeing sites mention in the past.

@StingingVelvet

I only mentioned BFBC2 because it still applies as having SecuROM removed, regardless of having Steam. For some, the latter doesn't matter, although it certainly does for me in not wanting it. Felt it was still worth mentioning though.

Bah with Red Alert 3. Would be nice if places actually started reporting better information.

It's cool, I was just trying to get to the root of the info, not trying to keep coming back at you.

It is cool when companies remove the DRM, like I said I would care a lot less about DRM if they did more often (or even better all the time). I bet a lot of them will eventually but I bet a lot of them won't too. Arg!

If it makes anyone feel better about Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2 Bioware did recently say on their forums that they have "sunset plans" for all their games, should the company ever go under the DRM would be removed. Not a legally binding agreement though.

I'd question the wisdom in this, as while DRM servers going dark is certainly a concern for those who like to keep and replay their games over a long period of time, I'd wager that the majority of negative DRM effects actually hit customers shortly after the game is released. Conflicts with various system setups, bugs in the implementation of the DRM that need to be patched, overloaded DRM servers from the release rush, etc... I'd contend that these kinds things tend to be the most widespread problems with DRM, and these things tend to hit the early adopters the hardest- basically the most loyal customers, who are paying the most for the game, get the worst experience. So it's a bust from a customer perspective, and from a business perspective these negative experience end up front-loading the customer reviews with quite a bit of negativity, driving down subsequent sales a bit when people who were on the fence end up reading about problems that other people had (even if those problems were corrected fairly quickly).

Additionally, as early adopters keep getting bit by initial DRM problems (in addition to the issue of numerous bugs that often have to be patched out) I think people are (slowly) starting to wait a bit longer on buying games, waiting for others to find out what problems there are, then buying a bit later once the various problems are ironed out (and often once the price has dropped a bit as well). Taken all together, it just doesn't seem particularly sensible to front-load the customer experience with problems.

It definitely would be nice if they followed through with that, but of course like you said, they are not obligated to. Personally, I wish people would champion this method a lot more. Buy a game, deal with the DRM for say 6 months, then get it removed as the initial sales period is long gone.

Not sure why everyone is pushing to total control by a third company over the above. I know I am part of the minority, but the above sounds incredibly appealing to me. /shrug

No doubt I would prefer no DRM be used at all. However, we cannot honestly expect that in this day and age. PC gaming has a terrible stigma attached to it, and DRM is becoming a necessary evil whether it works or not. Pirates do exist, and investors want to believe their product is safe (even if we know it is not).

A few companies still believe in being DRM free, such as CD Projekt with The Witcher 2 on GOG. However, such companies are few and far between. In fact, the situation is only growing worse as more companies are embracing heavily restrictive methods. Many companies are moving to Steamworks only, and Ubisoft went off the deep end with their methods. As much as i want a DRM free experience, I would rather encourage older methods such as SecuROM compared to methods where all rights to a game are completely lost.

I completely agree, DRM and surrounding issues are not sensible, but try convincing the publishers of that. It is difficult when the most common response to DRM is "lol I'll just pirate it then," creating a vicious circle.

I honestly have never had a problem with DRM, other than Steam not letting you revert to previous patch versions. As far as it working, the games running and all that... no issues.

That said I am not at all under the impression it never effect anyone.

Still, from my perspective the longevity problem is far and away the biggest issue I have with DRM. If companies routinely removed DRM 1-2 years after the game came out I would still understand why it annoys some people but personally I would never complain about it again, as I said. I think that is far and away a fair compromise.

I think the reason this is not promised is because these companies do not even think about the long-term viability of their software and games, which is a shame.

Regardless of how irrational some developers and publishers insist on being, that irrationality should still be pointed out whenever it comes up for discussion. Humoring such foolishness doesn't help anyone.

I'd rather not encourage any methods that provide a poor customer experience. Personally I think you're trying to look at and influence the situation on too large of a scale; I'd say the best thing to do is actually look at everything from a fairly selfish perspective. When I see games come out, and read reviews that enumerate various issues, my typical thought process is "I can buy this now for $50 and potentially have to deal with many of these issues, or I can wait 6 months to a year and buy it for $20 with most of these problems fixed." Regardless of what other people do I get what I consider a good deal for my money, and if enough other people also happen to be of a similar mindset then publishers will also have to take notice and change (or die). On the other hand, we've seen again and again if try to compromise by changing our idea of what kind of DRM is "acceptable" then the only thing that happens is a push towards even more restrictive DRM. Thus I'd say to people to not try to encourage some overall direction in the industry, but rather to simply act in your own interests- play by the rules (don't pirate), but be selfish, and let things develop on their own from there.

Much as I like BioWare, and as much as they're one of the few companies whose word I'd usually trust implicitly, this kind of thing I don't trust from anyone until it's proven. It's all too easy to placate the masses by saying "Oh yeah, we have plans somewhere in the nebulous future", but when it comes down to it, does anyone really believe that a company that's in the throes of folding is going to put patching the DRM out of their old games anywhere on their priority list? I certainly don't.

I have a few times, which is why I hate it. For one example, I was locked out of BioShock due to adding a hard drive and changing RAM (this burned up the two allowable activations they gave you when the game was first released). Couldn't fire up the game for months after that, despite the fact they upped the activation limit and provided a revoke tool. This was my first run-in with DRM of this type. I was completely oblivious to the whole thing before this happened. I was also bitten by the SecuROM "Let's make Windows Explorer crash if you right-click on an .exe file" update on one of the NWN2 patches. Of course, for quite some time, SonyDADC denied it had anything to do with the copy protection, only to quietly release an update days later that fixed the problem. Those are two examples of why I have a burning hatred for DRM.

A big +1 for DP's post here.

I understand your points and what you are trying to get at. I would do anything to have my games released through retail means with absolutely no DRM attached. However, I believe that is a highly unrealistic goal at this point in time.

Right now, I see the gaming community handling everything backwards. We once championed DRM free games and would rightfully speak out against SecuROM, Starforce, and TAGES. Now things are different. Instead of speaking out against such things, the community in general is fully embracing online services with more restrictive DRM methods. People are even becoming vocal about not buying a game unless it is on a service such as Steam. I have friends who are opting for a Steam copy of Witcher 2 over the DRM free GOG one just to give an example.

I would absolutely love to have DRM free titles, but at this point, I simply do not see it happening by major publishers. While I will agree I have compromised my beliefs to some degree by now accepting SecuROM, that is only because I understand DRM to be a necessary evil. The community is fully aware that DRM of any sort is a waste of time and effort on the publisher's part. However, piracy is not going anywhere either, and investors want to believe their product is safe. It is an ignorant stance to take on their part, but that is how things are and have been for a while. It's been pointed out to them time and time again, but few are listening.

To me, the solution is to find the common ground to satisfy both parties. I honestly believe that to be an activation system that is active for 6 months to one year, upon which it is removed as the bulk of sales are over. Investors will be happy, and consumers will be happy to varying degrees. Those who do not mind it can purchase the game, and those who do mind it can wait until the patch.

To be perfectly honest though, I find it an uphill battle with how Steamworks is praised as a godsend to PC gaming, and people demand their games on the service. Publishers are more than happy to comply (except for a few), and gamers are cheering. It makes absolutely no damned sense.

Right now, I see the more obtainable solution to be finding a common ground and convincing publishers to take that route. Achieve that, and then work towards DRM free. Small steps towards the greater goal. I vote with my wallet and I avoid piracy, but I believe stopping there and letting things develop on their own is dangerous. I'd rather be vocal and support a middle ground, than silent and let more restrictive services take over.

You still seem to be missing one of my key points- don't think about it in terms of trying to achieve some greater good, just think of it in terms of looking out for yourself. If the various negative aspects of DRM make a game worth less to you, then don't buy it until it drops to a price you consider worthwhile in light of the potential issues. This is something you're probably already doing, it's just important to recognize that the only motivating goal in this should be to ensure that you're spending your money in a way you consider worthwhile. Anything additional that occurs as a result is simply incidental.

Something you need to realize is that when people act together as part of a company the resulting entity is, the vast majority of the time, basically a sociopath. Whether this tends to be due to the people at the top themselves being sociopaths or just the unfortunate result of how decisions are made when divorced from personal responsibility can be debated, but the result is the same. It's also important to realize that there's no such thing as finding common ground and coming to a compromise with a sociopath- any willingness to make concessions is simply viewed as a weakness to be exploited. This is why it's essential to always act in your own best interests when dealing with such an entity. Additionally, while a sociopathic entity won't change it's behavior to try to come to common ground, it will change it's behavior to suit it's own best interests, and by acting solely with yourself in mind you ultimately align those interests with your own.

As for the message that needs to be vocally communicated, rather than a convoluted message of what kind of DRM is "acceptable" it needs to be a clear, simple message of self-interest: "DRM makes games worth less to me." Communicating that little piece of information, first with your purchases, and later vocally (when devs and publishers start wondering why their games didn't sell as well as they wanted) is the only thing that will get through and align publishers' interests with your own. But first and foremost it comes down to selfishly acting in your own interests as this will provide a clear benefit to you regardless of if something greater incidentally happens to follow from it.

My point is that you're all making way too much of an issue out of this non-issue. As such, I really don't understand your logic of backing things up and putting them in safety deposit boxes, etc.

They are only games for goodness sake. Stop worrying about whether you can use them in the future and play them now if it's such an issue that you need to back them up 20 odd times and lock them in safety deposit boxes.

Really, this much paranoia over the future of your games is one of most stupid recurring themes on this forum. And it's getting really old.

I can't argue about the Steam thing. if they ever go out of business, they're going to have to have some master skeleton serial that they email all of their customers because when the Valve ship goes down so do millions of games tied to thousands of customers.


Also, what else is there to do if there's a net outage in your area other than to play your games?

DOH!!!!

You wake up.

SecuRom will never go out of business as long as people are honestly buying games with such limits.

Post #71 is top :)