Mass Effect PC Copy Protection Details

[GameBanshee News]

Over on the official Mass Effect forum, Derek French has revealed some details about the copy protection on the PC port, including the fact that a periodic internet connection is necessary.

Mass Effect uses SecuROM and requires an online activation for the first time that you play it. Each copy of Mass Effect comes with a CD Key which is used for this activation and for registration here at the BioWare Community. Mass Effect does not require the DVD to be in the drive in order to play, it is only for installation.

After the first activation, SecuROM requires that it re-check with the server within ten days (in case the CD Key has become public/warez'd and gets banned). Just so that the 10 day thing doesn't become abrupt, SecuROM tries its first re-check with 5 days remaining in the 10 day window. If it can't contact the server before the 10 days are up, nothing bad happens and the game still runs. After 10 days a re-check is required before the game can run.

Spotted on RPGWatch.

[DesR85]

Are they really that paranoid about pirates?

[Siberys]

Yeah, umm...what about people who rig their gaming machines without internet for the purposes of not contracting viruses? Like, I dunno, ME!

The computer I type on now is a basic computer, nothing special, no special rigging and the only game I have installed is Diablo 2. I use this for internet and not my gaming machine because there's always a risk of contracting a virus through the web, and I'd prefer to just not have the internet than have four or five virus blockers hog all my memory and have the internet.

Not buying this game if they're doing it that way. I don't even normally like science fiction but I was even willing to give them a shot. Screw that now.

[Xandax]

For the high profile and hyped games piracy is indeed an issue which can cause problems.
The problem comes however with more and more aggressive anti-piracy measures which cause problems - ei. the disc can't be read, installed or similar.
It also looks to becoming a general accepted explanation from developers/producers when games doesn't live up to their hype.

However, I see no real way around the problem as long as there are so many people willing to pirate software and because companies of course want to protect their investments.
It is a problem without many perfect solutions. Personally - contacting a server over the net to authenticate - even if having to do that multiple times - are one of the more harmless methods, even if some run their rig without net connection. You can't have a perfect solution in an imperfect world.

[Siberys]

Personally, I think a lot of the newer contributions to Piracy are the Copy Protection stuff installed on a PC. People get so sick of buying a game that's gonna infect it with something they don't want, and don't deserve for actually paying for the game, so they download a hacked full version of the game just to play it like they originally intended.

This kind of thing really shouldn't be about the money and protecting the investment from piracy, It should be about designing the games. There will always be people who pirate games, and their will always be people who don't know enough about computers to pirate so they'd buy it instead. Developers should really spend less time worrying about piracy and more time about the quality of the game.

[Tricky]

So if it's not about the money.. would you be willing to pay twice or three times as much for an un- or lesser protected game instead? I gave it some thought, and I think I would. Big factor is general trashiness though. Quality games are rare, I think actually get to buy less than one per year nowadays. It wouldn't hurt me as much.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Siberys

Personally, I think a lot of the newer contributions to Piracy are the Copy Protection stuff installed on a PC. People get so sick of buying a game that's gonna infect it with something they don't want, and don't deserve for actually paying for the game, so they download a hacked full version of the game just to play it like they originally intended.

This kind of thing really shouldn't be about the money and protecting the investment from piracy, It should be about designing the games. There will always be people who pirate games, and their will always be people who don't know enough about computers to pirate so they'd buy it instead. Developers should really spend less time worrying about piracy and more time about the quality of the game.

I have no doubt that copy protection is driving somebody to piracy, simply because by pirating a product, you can in some cases end up with a better product then if you buy it legit.
However piracy was a huge issue back in the days when piracy protection wasn't so widespread, and I remember back in the early 90s where huge complication piracy CDs were distributed and bullitin boards overflowed with similar.

Asking that developers and producers should worry more about their game then piracy is pretty much a mute point, as I'm sure they also worry about quality of the game and I have no way of knowing how much time goes to each faction. But if looking at it so black and white, then simply because some people will always do illegal acts is no reason to remove laws or allow said acts to go unchallenged.
If anything - we need a change of thought process which removes the cool aspect or "it isn't so bad". A huge problem is that it is socially accepted to pirate games and software, music or whatever. It is "them" who do wrong, not the companies trying to protect their products.
However, changing peoples mindset from doing illegal acts to legal is not easy either - and so "we" as legal consumers are caught in the struggle between the two factions: Those who wants to protect their product and those who do not want to pay for products.

[CFM]

Originally Posted by Xandax

However, I see no real way around the problem as long as there are so many people willing to pirate software and because companies of course want to protect their investments.
It is a problem without many perfect solutions. Personally - contacting a server over the net to authenticate - even if having to do that multiple times - are one of the more harmless methods, even if some run their rig without net connection. You can't have a perfect solution in an imperfect world.

I totally agree with this.

I can only name about a half dozen or so people that I know of who play pc games. But I am the ONLY one I know who actually buys the games I play. These other people are much more into games than I, yet not one of them has EVER bought a game. They are almost proud of it, and refer to me as a dope for throwing money away.

Maybe to what extreme the pc game industry is affected by piracy is debatable. But if I'm the only one I know of who actually buys games, well, piracy has to affect the industry at least a little. And if there are companies out there whose survival depends on selling their product, well, the company would be foolish not to try out new ways to protect their product from being so blatantly stolen.

Proclaiming that "this kind of thing shouldn't be about the money" is ludicrous. When it's all said and done, the ONLY thing that allows a game company (or any other company for that matter) to pay its bills, pay its employees, and continue making more of its product, is sales income. On this planet, companies do not survive without money.

If (and I do say if) online activation and periodic rechecking puts a dent in piracy, then I'm all for it. I think that the losses of alienating customers who take issue with having their computer hooked up to the internet for 5 seconds during activation, are outweighed by the gains of putting a dent in piracy.

I want the companies that make my favorite games to prosper and flourish, and get fat and rewarded from putting out a quality game, and continue on with their next title. I embrace their efforts in both quality and piracy prevention, and hope that some day soon the industry will find a piracy prevention that works, and implement its prevention standard across the board. I want standard piracy prevention to encourage companies to focus on the pc game market without the fear of profit-cutting theft. Time will tell.

Ideally a piracy prevention standard will leave "customers" with only two options: 1) buy games, or 2) don't play games. And the fanatical pirate gamers that I know are not going to give up their favorite hobby over 50 bucks.

If prices are jacked up, then I fear the only one who will be affected is me, the dope who actually buys the game.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I've already preordered a ME copy.

I think the word "piracy" is inadequate - it romantisizes theft. It is so cool to be a pirate, isn't it.
I have no problem with copy protection - companies have right to protect their intellectual property from thieving scum as best as they can, the same way we all have right to protect our property.
I am against any price increase: 40-50 bucks for RPG is way too high already. Price increase would not guarantee any quality improvement; the same crap sold for $40 will be sold for $100.

And how would you download patches/updates/mods without internet connection, btw?

[Foss]

I have never had problems with any game because of copy protection, except HL2, but that was my own fault. Think it was the first game I bought that required internet connection, so I didn't notice it did, and at that point I didn't have access to the internet.

I don't know if these things will lower piracy or increase the income of the develepors. I hope so, but kind of doubt it. Think pirates will still crack it anyway.

I don't want any price increase either. It won't be a better game because of it and I think it will just force more to either be piggy about what they buy or get a pirated copy.
I pay over 80$ for any new game. Ofcause, because the dollar is so low. But, its still alot I think.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

I've already preordered a ME copy.

I think the word "piracy" is inadequate - it romantisizes theft. It is so cool to be a pirate, isn't it.

I think you are correct in that assumption yes.
But generally - I think "we" need an entire new way of thinking of electronic goods and copying of same, because right now many "illegal-copy-makers-and-users" (pirates are easier ) seem to think that it is okay because "it is only a copy" and "the original is not taken/removed/harmed".

@Foss: I have had problems with copy-protection not making my legit CD's able to run. Luckily, NO-CD patches also have legit uses.

[GawainBS]

I don't have any problems with copy protection, as long as it doesn't affect your ability to run the game. I find it unbelievable that you can only re-install certain games 3 times or so, or can't install it on more than one PC. What about users who get a new PC?
Sometimes, publishers get sloppy: I got the Empire Earth Gold Edition, but when I tried to installed the expansion, I needed a CD-key. Guess what? No CD-key was in the box, or on the pdf-manual. I tried contacting them, to no avail. On the forum, I got called a pirate. Customer Service said, after three weeks, to mail the game back to them. Yeah, right, when was I going to see it back?
In the end, I had to crawl through the hives of scum and villainy on the internet to get my perfectly legally bought game running.
My nephew got his illegal copy running after downloading for about 4 hours or so.

I wholy agree that economic needs is what drives (game)companies. But the above example is also about economics: To get my legal game running, I had to pay a very high cost of opportunity. I choose to, because it is right that the game developers earn their money. But basing your company policy on the ethical goodwill of your customers is folly, which is what happens most of the time.

In the end, I think the internet-requirement to play is a good thing, but the limiting number of installations (Not sure if I read that on GB or somewhere else) is moronic: that typically only punishes your customers.