Mass Effect for PC: Why do people hate DRM?

GameBanshee News · #1 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 08:11 AM

GameCritics.com has conjured up an article that defends the copy protection tactics used by video game publishers and developers, including requiring periodic activations as was going to be the case for Mass Effect PC.

Does DRM really inconvenience legit gamers while utterly failing to combat piracy? Sometimes, yes, it has. But as long as piracy remains rampant, developers have every right to try to protect their software as best they can. Online authentication is perhaps the most promising form of piracy protection, and it's likely that more and more developers will use it, particularly as PC games move from the retail shelf to digital distribution.

Futhermore, I always have to cast a skeptical eye at those who claim that copy protection such as SecuROM causes bugs and glitches, because in the two and a half years that I've been a PC-only gamer, of all the 30 or so games I own, not a single one has caused me any problems at all due to copy protection. While it's not impossible that some users have legitimate problems, I feel that it's more probable that copy protection is often erroneously blamed other system issues.

Xandax · #2 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 08:23 AM

I do think online activation and reoccurring activation is a minimal annoyance compared to so many other tactics. And I do also think that while piracy is so common place and social accepted, that I do not really fault companies for trying to protect their investment.
But I have had problems directly caused by copy protection to the degree that I could not run a legit game, unless using a no-cd patch.

Gilliatt · #3 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 12:09 PM

I'm not against copy protection at all, but I wonder what will happen with online activation if a company shuts down. If Baldur's Gate, Fallout or Planescape: Torment had an online activation, does that mean that we could not play them anymore since Black Isle and Interplay shut down?

Xandax · #4 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilliatt

I'm not against copy protection at all, but I wonder what will happen with online activation if a company shuts down. If Baldur's Gate, Fallout or Planescape: Torment had an online activation, does that mean that we could not play them anymore since Black Isle and Interplay shut down?

They'll get picked up by somebody else, or the protection will be removed - stuff like that. And in situations like that - it usually is legal to circumvent the protection measures.

Gilliatt · #5 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 12:47 PM

Thanks for clearing that.

Personally, I don't know how I would remove the copy protection if that was the case, but I guess I would find how if I had to. (Of course, that is not a disguised question inviting you to explain how to, I know it's illegal and that we should not discuss it here.)

Brother None · #6 (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax

They'll get picked up by somebody else, or the protection will be removed - stuff like that. And in situations like that - it usually is legal to circumvent the protection measures.

I don't think so re: the last part. Especially in countries that are more touchy when it comes to copy protection and ownership rights, like Germany.

Since most UELAs state that you lease a game and do not own it, there is no legal setting that allows you to use it regardless of what happens to the publisher. Which is exactly why "abandonware" exists in practice, but isn't legal in reality.

That doesn't mean that a decent publisher won't remove the protection themselves or - hell - that there won't be patches for it (the unofficial Arcanum patch removes the CD copy protection), but the latter bit won't likely be legal (it isn't for Arcanum).

But seriously, any decent publisher would issue a removal of this kind of stringent copy protection after 2 years, when there really is no point anymore.

Xandax · #7 (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:13 AM

Seeing as there are widespread debate over whether or not the EULA even constitutes a legal document, then I'm not worried.
In Denmark - for example - it is not considered a legal document, because it conflicts with danish business law.
Also here it is legal to circumvent/break copy protecting in if you need to, to be able to use the product, whether it is music, movie or games or other software.
And from what I've understood of US laws so far the same is made true there, but could of course be mistaken.

Brother None · #8 (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax

Seeing as there are widespread debate over whether or not the EULA even constitutes a legal document, then I'm not worried.

Yeah, I know, which is why I mentioned touchier countries, like Germany, where I'm fairly sure Abandonware sites are considered illegal.

There's no overlapping EU law on this, nor is US law very clear. It's mostly a big mess.

Then again, in a big mess, most of what you do is probably legal

Xandax · #9 (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother None

Then again, in a big mess, most of what you do is probably legal

Heh - indeed. And also it'll be problematic to prove that malice was at work, and the person "charged" wasn't acting in good faith.

I'm not familiar with Germany's laws regarding copy protection and breaking of such though, so can't really comment. However abandonware specifically, then a vast number of products on such sites actually are illegal because the owner of the rights haven't given them up, but they were most likely just "forgotten" or lost in a lot of corporate takeovers. So just because a game is old and the original company went belly up, doesn't mean that rights to it have been released.

Copyright laws are hugely complex, and despite I've looked somewhat at our own in this country, it is a very huge grayzone. Especially because rights can be sold - and often are - amongst various companies.
And that is what companies thrive on, because when few knows for sure - legally - what is allowed and what is not, then it is easy to claim something.

Brother None · #10 (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax

Copyright laws are hugely complex, and despite I've looked somewhat at our own in this country, it is a very huge grayzone.

I'll toast to that.

I spent way longer than I expected in trying to find out about the ownership and copyrights as they apply to Fallout. The "Bethesda owns it, Interplay licensed back MMO rights" is the easy part when you consider Interplay still holds the rights to release the older Fallout games (all of them) and gets all revenue from said sales, yet Interplay does not have the right to release any single-player material of the original games, like design docs or - I believe - the engine code (which can't be released anyway because it has an integrated licensed sound system). Etcetera etcetera.