Red Alert 3 to use "more lenient" DRM

By Robert Purchese Published 10 September, 2008

But PC community still up in arms.

EA has said the PC version of Red Alert 3 will use a "more lenient" version of SecuROM in order to curb piracy and make fans happy at the same time.

The game will only need to be authenticated online once after installation, according to a developer post on the official forums, and can be reinstalled up to five times. EA support can be contacted if further installations are needed. Red Alert 3 will also run without a CD.

These procedures apparently did nothing to stop Spore from being pirated successfully before the official release. The real effect of the installation limit, critics argue, is on game trade-in shops such as Gamestation and GAME.

This also effectively renders legitimate copies of RA3 useless at some point down the line, whether reinstalling to save hard drive space or through upgrading hardware or combating viruses, since EA support for that title may have been shut down at that point given past precedents.

"Do you ask for Sony's permission to use your PS3 when you turn it on for the 50th time? Do you ask for Honda's permission to turn on your motor in your car after 100,000 miles? No. You purchased these systems, and they are now yours to do with as you wish," writes one particularly angry member of that official forum.

There's also growing concern about the third-party SecuROM software, which users are forced to install, and which lingers even after the game is removed.

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 is due for release in October.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (67) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • WickedDeeJ #1 3 years ago

    Because it's not more lenient, really. It's the same version of SecuROM that came with Mass Effect and Spore, it still presents the same security risks and other problems - such as people waiting more than a week for a reply from EA Customer Support when they write in for additional activations for their games. The only difference is that it's now 5 activations, not 3.

    The fact still remains that this in essence turns the game into a rental that you can throw away once you've "used up" read: hit the limit, or you can pay through the nose on your phone bill to try and get EA on the phone to give you one additional activation.

    And finally; no: Uninstalling the game will *not* give you back the used activation slot, once it's gone, it's gone forever.

    All in all, as a long time fan of C&C and Red Alert, I'm very disappointed and I won't be buying Red Alert 3 as long as SecuROM is part of the package.

    Oh and Rob; Spore was pirated around 4 days before the US release of the game. Not after, *before*. This DRM does nothing to stop it, and only hurts those who actually buy the game.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 09:18

  • jellyhead #2 3 years ago

    Hopefully EA would follow Valve's lead and release patches to remove the Online authentication requirement before they drop support.
    What am i saying?! It's EA!
    Buy the game and hope they will still let you play it in 4 years time is all you can do. This can't be good for gaming regardless of the "Piracy" reasons they spout for such measures. Can it?

  • Stiluz #3 3 years ago

    Damn. I was gonna buy RA3, but now I'm not. If I buy the game I want to reinstall it how much I want without any DRM-shit in my way. I'll wait until SC2 then. Way to go EA, way to go.

  • mingster #4 3 years ago

    Why not just make it authentic online for every patch you require
    but drop the 5 install rubbish.
    (That can be patched by a registry hack anyway)

  • Dizzy #5 3 years ago

    I have not bought Spore because of DRM and will not buy anything else because of this kind of DRM. Lost sale EA.

  • rudedudejude #6 3 years ago

    FAIL.

    Sale lost,don't think I'll be buying EA until they get behind the community for a change and stop working against them.

    God, they are so clueless.

  • ps3owner #7 3 years ago

    I think EA has had enough of making games, they are concentrating on destroying themselves.

  • skillian #8 3 years ago

    I don't think this is about piracy, but about trying to prevent people selling or buying the game second-hand.

    Spore was cracked and out for download before it was out to buy (don't know what the article is referrring to when it says DRM prevented it being pirated for a week), but when you have no idea how many more installations a game has left before it's locked, the game basically has a value of zero in the second-hand market.

    I won't buy it as I don't want to support it.

  • Meho #9 3 years ago

    This insanity REALLY has to stop. Five installs and you're out? Why thank you sir, I think I will help myself to the cracked version that, quite surprisingly allows me to install the game as many times as I damn please. And, yes, I had SPORE downloaded and installed on my PC two days prior to the European release date and five days before the US release date. I am waiting for it to hit our shops here so I can buy it, but now I am really in two minds about it. Mass Effect (and BioShock) I have purchased because I want to have products and I like the packages, despite the fact that I never even put those DVDs into my tray but perhaps there is something in voting with your wallet and telling the publishers that treating your paying customer like a criminal (AND a fool) is bad for business.

  • dacicus #10 3 years ago

    Well, I think most of you have read the interview with Mr. Frank Gibeau. Remember? "No green light for games with only single player". And everything Riccitello was dreaming to achieve is going down the drain.The support is worsening by the day, the protection schemes are hurting only the customers ( I've started to see Spore creations packs on the torrents, so "people missing all the fun" statement, it just does not stand anymore. I've bought Bioshock and Mass Effect, but the pirates are winning and laugh in the face of the honest customers. They have versions of the games that can be installed how many times they wish.So I skipped Spore and I will skip RA3, though that will pain me, as I have all the PC C&C series, including some PS One releases. But between renting a game for 50 bucks and finding something better out there in the same money, I choose the second option. Being burned with the Mass Effect (Bioshock removed the activationand the install limit, now I hope they will remove activation completely), I'd rather keep my money.Maybe I'll buy some PSP games, or some PC european games(they still use SolidShield/Tages).Better than renting a game, don't you think?

  • mallocks #11 3 years ago

    "These procedures apparently prevented Spore from being pirated for roughly one week."

    What date could EA possibly be taking this from? It hasn't been out legitimately one week, and as people have noted it was up on the trackers before the actual release date.

    Please Eurogamer use your contacts to disabuse EA of this incorrect assumption: as long as they feel their DRM is working then they'll hang the consumer to hold onto this week of retail time they feel they've achieved.

  • kangarootoo #12 3 years ago

    Well to be honest, the quoted angry forum member wholly fails to understand software licensing. When you buy a game, at NO point do you own the game. What you own is a right to use the game, as detailed in the license agreement that you say you have read and understood when you install the game.

    That aside, this while PC anti-piracy issue is getting out of hand. It is shit like this that is killing the by driving gamers away. Harsh anti-piracy measures are always the retreat of publishers that have been caught snoozing. Finding intelligent ways to distribute your content is the way forward, not bluntly trying to secure archeaic distribution methods that should be consigned to the scrap heap.

  • Godz_Mercenary #13 3 years ago

    "These procedures apparently prevented Spore from being pirated for roughly one week."

    Spore was cracked and uploaded on the 2nd September. Spore wasn't officially released for a few days later.

  • Gunzberg #14 3 years ago

    You mean I can't resell RA 3 after completing it like with all my games....why are EA forcing me to pirate this game that I would have bought

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #15 3 years ago

    Edited quickly to change the line about the post-release crack. Thanks to those who pointed it out!

    I actually had no idea of how cheesed off people are about DRM. Given the reasons, I'm not surprised.

  • kangarootoo #16 3 years ago

    "You mean I can't resell RA 3 after completing it like with all my games....why are EA forcing me to pirate this game that I would have bought"

    I think it is important to seperate rights from desires on this one. You have no right to sell a game on after you have finished playing it, regardless of whether that has been your (and my) habit for some while.

    And as for the "forcing" issue, that is the worst kind of lame. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Like any product, if you don't like the deal you simply don't buy it or use it. If Honda released a car with a warranty you considered to be too short, you wouldn't try to justify stealing one of the forecourt. You would simply buy someone elses car.

    Adult attitudes are what is needed here. Saying that you are being forced to pirate stuff is simply childish.

  • Lexx87 #17 3 years ago

    To be honest I think anyone not actually buying the game because of this are whiney stupid cunts.

  • thesombrerokid #18 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    what you say is true only in the eyes of the law however in a democracy the view of the majority is more definitive and the majority don't agree with the law in this respect.

    ohh and your honda argument isn't comprable

    the choices would be a free honda that starts everytime you turn the key and a honda that checks whos in the drivers seat and only starts for the person who bought it for £10,000
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 10:40

  • Gunzberg #19 3 years ago

    Well figure this - I'm not going to buy it full price unless I can sell it on

    I can't buy it 2nd hand because someone might have used up all the activations

    Therefore what option does that leave me other than wait 6 months+ till it gets discounted

    And no I don't pirate games, I buy all my games either 2nd hand or heavily discounted but this is the first time that I'm being indirectly told that the most convenient and least frustrating way to get the game is to visit torrent sites

  • mallocks #20 3 years ago

    @thesombrerokid

    Woah there. Cite?

  • XENgamer #21 3 years ago

    Just like Mass Effect - another game I was looking forward to but won't be buying!
    I might be being naive but I think Ironclad have got it right with Sins of Solar Empire, just authenticate online when you patch (and maybe when you're playing with people over the net).
    As others have said by limiting the number of installs surely you're just upsetting the fanbase/legit players, and I'm sure that this method will have little or no effect people who are gonna pirate this anyway.

  • thesombrerokid #22 3 years ago

    @mallocks
    there's no legal citation it's a sociological factor i'm referring to, a law setting government is required to adhere to what the majority of people want if it wants to remain in power and the public has the choice to demonstrate by breaking undemocratic laws and suffer the legal consequences, which in this case are non existant.

    therefore what the law sees as licensing the public sees as property and since the legal system is incapable of enforcing it's view, the software is property
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 10:46

  • Fallen_Angel #23 3 years ago

    Well I refused to buy Spore cos of the DRM and now the same will happen with RA3. And I even refuse to pirate them, since that'll give EA another figure to turn round and say "This is why we need it".

  • mingster #24 3 years ago

    @Xengamer
    Yup this is the Stardock way of doing copy protection and to me the best way.
    You can redownload the game for free from stardock after registering your serial code online.
    And can install the game with no copy protaction or DRM but need to authentic online for each patch or update or online mutilpayer game.
    I think thats fair.
    Limiting how many times you can install is bullshit.

  • DFawkes #25 3 years ago

    When I buy a game, I realise I'm buying the licence to play it, but that used to mean the licence to play it when you want to. You could sit and reinstall it all day if you had some weird fetish, and nothing bad would come of it (except being taken away by people in white coats, you freak).

    I just despise a publisher telling me how many times I can install the game I bought. It doesn't fight piracy, it doesn't make consumers happier, all it does is annoy. I could understand some people not minding, but as soon as publishers start dictating how their games are played, you know they've stopped respecting you as a customer.

    Although I'm only boycotting SecuROM titles, not the rest of EAs stuff, so I doubt they care. I'm rubbish at this protesting stuff.

  • kangarootoo #26 3 years ago

    @thesombrerokid

    "what you say is true only in the eyes of the law however in a democracy the view of the majority is more definitive and the majority don't agree with the law in this respect."

    That is about the most wooly statement I have read in a long while. What exactly do you mean by "definitive"? Are you suggesting that if the majority don't agree with a law, it should simply immediately be ignored? In this particular instance, what you seem to be advocating is that in a democracy a law should be ignored if the majority are too damn misinformed to understand it. Can't say I agree with that one bit.

    "the choices would be a free honda that starts everytime you turn the key and a honda that checks whos in the drivers seat and only starts for the person who bought it for £10,000"

    What?! I'm not even going to get bogged down in car related nonsense. I clearly shouldn't have used the comparison. My point is that if you don't like the way a product works or is sold, you simply don't buy it or use it. What you don't do is steal it and then try to justify the theft on the basis of you not liking it very much. If you disagree with that then lets deal with that directly instead of getting bogged down in misunderstanding of metaphor.


    @Gunzberg

    I agree with everything in your latest post above. I also sell games on after use, and this latest form of "piracy protection" is giving gamers an insentive to simply not bother. What I objected specifically to was the suggestion that anyone is being forced to pirate games. You don't advocate that in your latest post, so I think we generally agree.


    My general point (not aimed at all at you Gunzberg) and one that seems to raise its heard in various forms on these pages, is that games are luxury items. LUXURY ITEMS! They are not air, or food, or education, or living without fear.

    Too many gamers act as if they have a right to games by any means, and that if the deal isn't sweet enough they are perfectly justified in pirating them to serve their apparent right. This is clearly complete and utter nonsense and I find it hard to believe any sane person would disagree. Sometimes I jsut wish people would have the balls to stand up and say "I steal games because I don't want to pay, and generally I don't give it a lot of thought beyond that" instead of hiding behind bizarre excuses that just make them look a bit simple.

  • kangarootoo #27 3 years ago

    @DFawkes

    Boycotting SecuROM titles is still effective. EA want to sell all of their titles, and they also don't want to spend money on technology that actually hits their sales. If using SecuROM caused sales to noticeable dive, they wouldn't persist with it. Only problem is, it probably won't make sales noticeably dive.

    SecuROM's entire business model is based on bad business practice elsewhere. If the rest of the industry got their house in order, SecuROM would have no business left.

  • oreillymj #28 3 years ago

    Can't these hardcore PC game loving users run these games in a virtual PC? Then the SecureROM infection is kept off your real hardware.

    MS virtual PC is free and so is VMware as far as I know. Ok, there's a bit of a performance hit, but for games like Spore I'm sure it would be doable.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #29 3 years ago

    Woah there. Why are some people suggesting that we have no right to sell a game on? In the country I live in (the UK), we certainly damn well do. Otherwise stores like Game, Gamestation and CeX would have been closed down long ago for illegal activities. Whether EA like it or not is irrelevent.

    Oh and none of this DRM lark ta. I didn't buy Mass Effect because of this, and I'm not buying this game either. No worried, it's pennies to spend on other games. Y'know, games that don't expect me to ask permission from the publisher to use the game I just paid £30 for.

  • skillian #30 3 years ago

    Are you suggesting that if the majority don't agree with a law, it should simply immediately be ignored?

    I don't know if that is what he is suggesting, but it's a rule that I and many others do believe in. Personal morals trump institutional laws in my book.

    Otherwise I wouldn't I smoke weed or pirate TV shows :)

  • Maximilian #31 3 years ago

    Didn't the use of Starforce pretty much die out thanks to an angry internet? I imagine the same thing will happen with Securerom. The funny thing is that I think moaning about the install limit is as stupid as having the limit in the first place.

    If I used my install limits up due to hard drive failure, PC upgrade or whatever what would I do? Get the pirate version thereafter.

  • michaelius #32 3 years ago

    Same bullshit again, looks like we need to give minimal rating on all online shops with RA3 once it's released just like with Spore on amazon and repeat the process again and agin till they learn.

  • CARL05 #33 3 years ago

    WTF EA!

    What makes them think that including DRM to effectively turn their game into a rental is going to combat piracy.
    I don't download pirated games but i'm sereously considering it if they don't remove their stupid SecuROM Malware soon!
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 12:22

  • wellsie #34 3 years ago

    just left bad reviews for spore on play.com and amzon.co.uk and will do the same when this is released. There is no excuse for this.

    edit: can put a review for this on play.com now btw
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 12:35

  • kangarootoo #35 3 years ago

    @Shakey_Jake33

    Not having the right to something is not the same as it being illegal.

    It is not illegal for you to sell on a game you have bought, but you don't have the RIGHT to sell on the game, insofar as if someone took away your ability to do so (as in this SecuROM case) you would not be able to legally challenge them (that said, the court is kind of out on that subject, so maybe I am wrong, though I suspect SecuROM have done their homework in this case).

    "permission from the publisher to use the game I just paid £30 for"

    Again, you don't own the game, you never did. You simply own a disc and a right to play the game. Not one art asset, not one line of code, not one design idea belows to you. This is not rocket science.


    Why do people let their own agenda cloud their understanding of clear facts. I have my own agenda, I don't want to have anti-piracy measures intefering with my legitimate gaming hobby. On that note I have the same agenda as everyone else on here. But I like to think I can keep that agenda seperate from my understanding of how copyright licensing works.

    @skillian

    Well ok, I didn't phrase things very well. I also apply my own judgement to various laws. Every motorist that knowingly breaks a speed limit is doing exactly the same thing.

    I suppose my comment was more about the nature of democracy. A democracy does not operate on the basis that people can have whatever they want, that is anarchy. A democracy exists to protect the needs of minorities as well as represent the wishes of the majority.

    And what I was picking up on was the extremely (suspiciously) wooly suggestion that the opinion of the majority in a democracy is "definitive", and I pointedly asked what that actually meant.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 12:58

  • MikkyX #36 3 years ago

    Is it fair to say draconian DRM like this is driving potential legitimate buyers to piracy, thus having completely the opposite effect to the intended? They say it's meant to prevent piracy but Spore was up on newsgroups two days before release last week. Mass Effect was pirated, RA3 will be pirated. All those free copies will enjoy unrestricted play while legit customers are on the phone begging for another install because Vista completely screwed up on them for the sixth time in a week.

    EG should write a feature about it. Then put it on the front page in a 72 point font - "DRM DOESN'T HELP"

  • Shakey_Jake33 #37 3 years ago

    We're splitting hairs here. Replace the word 'own' with whatever more suitable word of your choice. My basic point is that we're paying £30 to play a game.

    Licencing gets brought up all the time in discussions like this, but perhaps because people like myself use terminology differently to how it should be used. Okay, my bad. Maybe I don't own the data on the disc insofar as I can't just do what I want with it - no challenge there. But talk about licencing is ignoring the fact that what myself and other people are talking about is simply being able to play the game, nothing more, nothing less.

    Honestly, not trying to get personal with this in the slightest, but paying £30 to play the game has nothing to do with licencing, copyright, ownership of data etc. It's purely to do with me and you being able to play the game we just bought.

    EDIT - I realise in hindsight that you are refering to being able to sell the game on, rather than us being able to play the game. My bad.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 13:48

  • actionfitz #38 3 years ago

    it boggles the mind really O.o
    what they have done in effect is promote piracy of Spore and RA 3.
    hear me out please.

    Pirates are in effect getting a more accessable, less restrictive version of the game without the dodgy spyware (securom).

    Legitimate customers who want to support game development by studios who's work they like and respect...
    get their PC infested with non-removable spyware (no uninstall option even after Spore is removed), and have to pay again if they commit the fatal error of having low diskspace (and have to install new games / remove old ones every time the want to play something) - be it buying a new copy of the game years/months down the line or paying the cost of an international tech support call to EA (if you remembered to keep some proof of puchase over the months/years).

    The games in question were cracked and the 'Fuck-u-ware' removed almost the same time as they hit the shops.
    So non-pirates are left with a choice of waiting for console versions or being stung in the arse repeatedly by EA.

    /face-palm

  • Graham_Bark #39 3 years ago

    This is getting stupid now. No, not the DRM, but the insane outbursts from the internet as a result. So what if you have to activate your game before you can play it? Steam keeps a constant check on everything, but no one complains about that - anymore. So what if you can only install it five times? I've never needed to install a game five times, and I doubt many people do. Its so rare that you'll actually need to do so, so few people will require it, is it really such a travesty to have to get in contact with EA? As for the points about not being able to sell the game on once you're done I once again point to Steam. People are reacting to this in such a hostile way partly because its EA. The response is almost completely irrational. EA want to try and stop piracy, and rather than support them, or heck, suggest an alternative, you criticise this decision and attempt to pirate it yourself. The only solace that can really be taken is that you lot number on a few dozen here, and only a few hundred across the whole internet - insignificant to EA sales wise. It is an incredibly annoying thing to see people attack this system, when it is clear that somehting MUST be done about piracy. I hope that everyone here agrees to that, although I fear that too many will believe piracy to be a fantastic way of circumventing the sytem and get a game for free. After all, the fact that people have worked long and hard on a product doesn't mean that they deserve anything for it! Heck, you could atleast buy the game for £30, and THEN download the pirated version. That way they would get paid, and you get your unlimited installs. Piracy is a huge issue, so perhaps you should try and provide EA with solutions to the problem. What would stop you from pirating a game? What, besides DRM, would lead you to pirate? I agree that limiting the installs is a bizarre idea, and I'm sure preventing resales does come into the picture to a certain extent, and ultimately it shouldn't have a place in modern gaming, however its certainly not enough to dissuade me from buying a game that looks like its going to be great from the beta, nor indeed Spore. Its time for people to grow up and not instantly feel that they must rebel against everything.

  • Nithron #40 3 years ago

    @MikkyX: I'm pretty sure this is actually aimed at destroying the used games market, simply because it makes no sense from an anti-piracy perspective.

    Pirates already can't use the online functions of basically any game because they check if the serial you're using is valid, and pirates just get theirs from a keygen, usually. Adding online activation means they can't even use the singleplayer modes without a valid serial.

    Publishers have always blacklisted a serial if it's being used simultaneously more than once for online play, as an anti-piracy measure.

    Now however, they've decided you have to activate every time you install it, or your hardware changes, and then they lock you out forever if you do it too many times. This doesn't add anything to the anti-piracy stance from what they used to be doing. And as we can see from the torrent websites, it's not stopping torrent piracy at all.

    Their old methods stopped the whole "giving copies out to your mates" method already.

    So what does this do exactly? Well, it stops you selling your game on, don't it.

    And Graham_Bark: You do realise that any change in your hardware will require a reactivation, and take up one of your limited reinstallation slots, right? So you add a new graphics card... One's gone. Replace the harddrive, or add a new one, that's another. Windows dies? Yeah... That's another. It's not gonna take long, is it.
    Also, it does, as i said, prevent you from selling your game used. Which last i checked, you're allowed to do, because it's your property. Well, it was your property.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 14:05

  • actionfitz #41 3 years ago

    @ Graham_Bark
    10-Sep-08 13:50:39

    "So what if you have to activate your game before you can play it? Steam keeps a constant check on everything, but no one complains about that - anymore."

    I agree there. I play games on steam, i suscribe to MMORPGS. I would be paranoid about buying a used PC game anyway. consoles on the other hand - i have a fair few preowned games.

    "So what if you can only install it five times? I've never needed to install a game five times, and I doubt many people do."

    Good for you. not all of us have terrabytes of HD space. In the past 3 months i've replaced my PC with a new one, upgraded various componants - RAM, hardrive and GFX card, had to reinstall a new vista (had 32 bit, found i needed the 64 bit version to recognise more than 3gb of ram - I render 3D professionally and need loads of ram)... you're saying I and a large quantity of customers should just accept this BS and move along?

    "is it really such a travesty to have to get in contact with EA?"

    Not if they make the support line Free to call and commit to removing all the DRM in a futre patch if they ever decide to stop supporting it. Im not calling the states and paying £££ to reactivate a game i already payed for.


    I dont pirate games.
    Im not supporting pirating Spore.
    Im upset at EA, and wont be buying anything with Securom on it.
    I'll support the devs buy buying the console verions - if the do them.
    my 2p.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/08 @ 14:10

  • Graham_Bark #42 3 years ago

    If the only way to gain extra activations is indeed a premium rate phone line, then I apologise, that is indeed completely unacceptable for those that do need it.
    However, I still dont think this can be a huge number. As for the hard drive issue, I would hope people upgrading their PC would be getting atleast 500Gb hard drives if they intend to play games these days, and they're not exactly expensive relative to other PC components. It is also of course possible to add another hard drive. You might want to install the game on your main PC and your laptop or second PC if you have one. That still leaves another 2 or 3 installs for upgrades.

    The big problem I see is indeed the complete lack on long term support. I would hope that if EA stop supporting a game then they remove the activation limit entirely. And as I said, it is completely wrong to charge extortionate rates, which I didn't realise was the case.
    Still, I would like to see a bit more support for anti-piracy measures than a continual attack on companies that are trying to protect themselves.

  • Nithron #43 3 years ago

    This isn't aimed at piracy though. Go look at a torrent website. Spore's all over the place, and it uses the same protection as this.

    This is aimed at preventing people from being able to buy games used.

    Also, eventually, you just wont be able to play it at all. Those activation servers wont be there forever. Recently, two online music stores closed - owned by Microsoft and Yahoo - Which means that nobody who bought their music from there can actually play it any more. Those stores were only open a couple of years.

    Same thing'll probably happen to the Securom activation servers in the not so distant future.

  • actionfitz #44 3 years ago

    "I would hope that if EA stop supporting a game then they remove the activation limit entirely."

    same here.
    because then my main problem would be Securom itself, not anti-piracy measures as a whole.

    There are better solutions out there, but its not for me or other random internet voices out there to suggest new business models to EA which are viable in the 21st century. They already pay people large salaries to do that, and so far its my personal opinion that they need to get more creative.

  • Pulsar_t #45 3 years ago

    @oreillymj
    VirtualPC emulates a PC. Modern games are too demanding to run in a virtualised environment. Furthermore, those emulators don't support all advanced hardware functions (e.g. DirectX 10 acceleration)

  • ruckus #46 3 years ago

    It's bollox - fine if it's just one title but once you've got quite a few games, applications that you want after each hardware/os update it'll soon get out of hand. Thus if there is no crack or policy of removing the digital restrictions management then I'll vote with my wallet.

  • kangarootoo #47 3 years ago

    @Graham_Bark

    I agree with most of what you have to say (not least the bits where you suggest many people just need to grow the f*ck up).

    However, I don't agree that SecuROM is a solution comparable to Steam.

    I made the point earlier that I believe trying to secure a physical PC disc in this day an age is a exercise in stubborness. Steam removes the need to secure the media because it secures the USAGE of the software. That is key, and it is the reason that SecuROM has to be so cack/heavy handed in its approach.

    SecuRom is to Steam what a shit version of Blade is to a vampire (bare with me on this one), in other words all of its weaknesses and none of its strengths. Steam lets you install your game WHEREVER you want, as many times as you want, and if your entire house burns down to dust you can still re-download the games you "own" once your new PC is up and running.

    Steam's genius is not in the technology they apply, but in the foresight iD had when it came to trends in delivery and usage. The same genius that has made Apple millions from iTunes. They could each see respectively where their market was headed and they acted on that. SecuRom are quite simply behind the times, and EA probably wish they had invented Steam instead of having to put up with SecuRom instead.


    As for selling on games you have bought... Times are a changing people and we just have to take that one on the chin. The future is digital distribution, and the future is tiered subscription (I should set myself up as a technology predictor person, I bet they get paid loads). The future does not include selling on old game discs, but the future will include a better pricing model that will in the end serve us perfectly well.

    I hate anecdotal evidence generally, but did I not just recently the latest Siren game on PSN for £20. If that game was on a disc it would be the normal RRP for a triple AAA title, no doubt.

    And I know some people just like the feel of an aluminium disc in their hand and fear the coming of DD, but such people are clearly just mad techno-druids to be ignored, or at the very least pointed at ;)

  • Barkotron #48 3 years ago

    Won't be buying this either. Didn't buy Mass Effect or Spore due to limited installs, not going to buy this.

    It's not a matter of whether I need to install it that many times or not, it's a matter of not supporting publishers who punish their paying customers. I refuse to give money to those supporting these tactics. Why should I have to phone and ask them nicely to please let me reactivate the game again (with no guarantees they'll say yes)? It's _mine_, I paid for it, if I want to sit in my room installing it again and again on slightly different hardware or reinstalled operating systems it's none of their damned business.

    It's been mentioned before, but those paying for this are getting a far worse product than those torrenting it. Which is madness. I can't think of any other area where this happens. If you buy a fake Rolex, it's not better than the original ones, but it's much cheaper. Whereas if you pirate Spore, you get a better product without the install limitation, you get it cheaper, and you could even get it before it was available legitimately. How does that make sense?


    @kangarootoo: I haven't been able to track down a definitive source for UK law, but at least in the US, you're 100% wrong when you say there is "no right to sell a game on". It's called First Sale doctrine. [link url=http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_...[/link]

    Note the recent case where the judge decided that software sales were _not_ exempt from this. Just because the licence you click "yes" to before installing says something doesn't necessarily mean it has any actual effect in law. Luckily consumers are beginning to push back on this kind of thing more and more. There's no need to lie down and accept the buggering the companies would love to administer.

  • Gunzberg #49 3 years ago

    @kangaroo yeah I agree, games are a luxury, no one is entitled to their copy no matter what their cost.

    It's just very annoying that when a customer who would have pre-ordered RA3 or something similar is told indirectly full price only boy or wait x no. of months.

    I'd pirate it not because I'm cheap but because of this installer limitation, which I see as simply being a burden on the consumer.

    Something like online one time online activation is fine by me or patches only after registering...anyway maybe they'll see sense

  • kangarootoo #50 3 years ago

    @Barkotron

    Good link. Sounds like if anyone were to test this in English law the outcome would probably be the same.

    However, in this particular situation its not a matter of not being able to sell on a legit copyrighted media disc, its actually more a case of (after 5 installs) effectively not having anything left to sell on.

    I think it would prove extremely difficult for anyone to prove that this were not legal for SecuROM to impose on people. I suppose it is like saying that the user can sell something on if they want, but the warranty is not transferable.

    That said. I know a few companies say that their warranty is not transferable, but their right to state that is on shaky legal ground. If someone sold this on, and then the new user found it would not install, would they be able to demand that EA give them a new key? It would make for an interesting case.

  • kangarootoo #51 3 years ago

    @Barkotron

    Actually, that link suggests the court is still out (no pun intended) in the US on the matter too. And actually it seems to depend more on where in the US you file a suit than anything else.

  • Feanor #52 3 years ago

    "Steam's genius is not in the technology they apply, but in the foresight iD had when it came to trends in delivery and usage"

    You mean valve, right?

    A major point about Securom no one has brought up here yet, is the way it can fuck around with your DVD drive. That's what stops me from buying Securomed games.

  • ByteShield #53 3 years ago

    This is a terrible story for 2 parties - legitimate users who simply wanted to play the game and couldn't because the activation servers went down and EA because the game was cracked even before it was released.

    Often developers walk a tightrope with the tradeoff between protection strength and the degree of impact on legitimate users but this was a failure on both dimensions! Is this really what the publisher wants to 'accomplish'? Why not use a solution which is friendly to honest users, has no impact on development time and the strongest available protection against crackers - see the whitepaper "Is Anti-Piracy/DRM the Cure or the Disease for PC Games?" which can be downloaded here www.byteshield.net/byteshield_whitepaper_0005.pdf.


  • secombe #54 3 years ago

    The real effect of the installation limit, critics argue, is on game trade-in shops such as Gamestation and GAME

    What planet are they on?! GAME haven't accepted PC games for years.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #55 3 years ago

    Steam works so well because it's precisely the opposite of that SecuROM does. SecuROM limits you to 5 activations. With Steam, you can install the game as many times as you like, on as many systems as you like, so long as you log in as yourself. Your purchase is tied to you as a person, a customer... not to your hardware. Steam is an example of DRM implemented in a manner that doesn't punish the customer, but actually works in their favour as they have access to their purchases any time they log into Steam.

    There's a world of difference.

  • Salato #56 3 years ago

    Won't be buying this either then. They will only learn and be made to change if consumers show their anger and refuse to buy games with problems like this.

  • Mawich #57 3 years ago

    Do GAME deal in preowned PC games? I've never seen any there... I always assumed it's becaues it's so much easier to copy a PC game, then sell it on while continuing to play.

    Of course these days if you're going to do that, just download the thing, no need to buy it at all. DRM does not work.

  • Sevens #58 3 years ago

    Insane DRM. Don't buy the PC version.

  • ProtoDjinn #59 3 years ago

    this piracy issue is nonsense and a shit-screen campaign for a problem EA has. Annual games. FIFA, Madden, all them games released year in year out with crap improvements over the last. They need to rethink their stratagy, and if your reading the EA, contact me, i'll give you the best advise you've ever had with these games, and improve your profit margins, without punishing the consumer with crap malwear that is inneficient anyway in protecting your products. You can't lock the PC system down. I cant beleive you haven't learned from the past and seeked out more efficent methods. Your a fucking wreck EA.

    Sorry for the coarse language

  • dacicus #60 3 years ago

    The best way: let the wallet talk for you. Don't pirate the game, just don't buy any of theire games with such a protection. It worked against Ubisoft, when they were using Starforce(Prince of Persia 2-3, Splinter Cell IV), so it might work as well against EA. Choosing what to buy or not is the choice of a informed customer.After all, if EA can't sell the products, they will lose a lot of companies that are using EA games for advertising other products. If EA can't sell a game (especially one as big as RA3, their shares might take a nice fall. Just don't buy products which are limiting your install number, that don't guarantee that the online instalation will be removed later(let's say after a year, when the sales are going down).
    P.S.: a fully operational crack was released for Alone In The Dark V, so you can see the efficiency of the new SecuRom Online in alienating the honest customers.Let's see: pirates are getting versions with unlimited installs and no online activation. Legit customers are treated like thiefs. They are charged at the EA support line with prices that are covering almost twice the cost of a game, while the so called free e-mail address it's a dead end where no one from EA's staff will answer.

  • dk_rare #61 3 years ago

    I would have assumed that an online strategy game would already have the best inbuilt DRM, being that when you play online your online profile links to your copy of the game.

    Which leads me to the conclusion that EA wants to stop people from trading in their games, forcing them to buy new ones.

    To summarize this is not about protection from piracy, this is about protection from after market sales.

  • peak_performance #62 3 years ago

    I have quite a few older games that I've installed at least five times, maybe up to ten. If I would run into this problem while installing Half-Life today I can say that I probably would not care enough to call/email a support line - I would either pirate it or throw the CD back in the case and mutter to myself.

    So where was the problem? Oh yes, I bought/licensed the game and should not have to put up with the shit, ever.

    *Disgruntled customer*

  • kangarootoo #63 3 years ago

    "You mean valve, right? "

    Oh yeah. Oops :)

  • kangarootoo #64 3 years ago

    @ByteShield

    That is quite an interesting paper, but it also a shameless plug :)

  • sneetch #65 3 years ago

    @secombe
    "What planet are they on?! GAME haven't accepted PC games for years. "

    @Mawich
    "Do GAME deal in preowned PC games? I've never seen any there... I always assumed it's becaues it's so much easier to copy a PC game, then sell it on while continuing to play."

    No they don't and they never will again and it has nothing to do with DRM; it's the licence that they're sold under (and that you accept while installing), you can't resell it and you are normally restricted to installing it on one or two machines. Whether or not that licence is actually enough to legally prevent you from reselling it could be challenged but the idea is probably enough to prevent shops like GAME even considering it.

    This is just enforcing that licence (in a minorly annoying fashion but if you uninstall while connected to the internet then you don't "lose" your install).

    Anyway, I can see the sky is falling so I'll leave you all to it. ;)

  • bionutz #66 3 years ago

    All my PC games in the last year came from Steam. Steam does not mess up my property, my computer and its configuration. I don't buy PC games that do not come from Steam anymore, although I wished to have Bioshock. It's as others have said here, the only way to tell the corporates that there is a problem: not giving them your money. If you really must play, there are plenty of old good games that are now free or very cheap for PS2 for instance, and they can be very rewarding. For the PC, with DOS you can also play a lot of really good games.
    Edited by 1 at 12/09/08 @ 20:56

  • peppergomez #67 3 years ago

    i am so grateful, gee, thanks EA...cancelling my preorder now and will download a pirated copy instead
    EA=fail
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/08 @ 17:20