DRM Shuts Down PC Version of Gears of War [Slashdot]

[BHvrd]

Well I guess this explains why my game stopped working, I was really wondering wtf. Tried new drivers and everything.

Live for Windows has also been a pain, they should make it a standalone program rather than only working when you are in-game and it boots.

[robotriot]

To be fair, an internet connection is listed as being one of the minimum requirements (http://store.steampowered.com/app/220/) and expecting it to work through a firewall without specific exemptions set is like complaining about losing frames while gaming with a full AV scan running in the background. Bonus points for making it easy to backup games and for having a fairly easy to run offline mode (https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-AGCB-2555).

Steam has come a long way in the last few years. I remember when it was in beta I thought it was a pile of shit. Hell, even after HL2 came out it was pretty spotty. I got lucky and was able to unlock my game right on time, but I knew some dudes that had to wait a few days before they could play. For a while now though, it's been wonderful.

Never having to hunt down patches is an especially nice feature.

Still they are preventing me from using the product I purchased the way I want to use it, I don't think that's fair. I prefer Stardock's software, it offers similar features (patches etc) yet comes with less annoying copy protection schemes.

[Rob2600]

DRM is on its way out.

True. Supposedly, Apple just got rid of DRM in the iTunes store and Amazon's MP3 store never even had it to begin with.


So, now that 256 kbps, DRM-free songs are available online for less than $1 each, has piracy gone down? I hope it has, but I'm sure people who pirate music will come up with another excuse to justify their actions.

[monkeychemist]

You're really grasping for straws here, man. Just quit.

nice comeback!

[TonyTheTiger]

I don't think anybody expects piracy to go away. That being the case, it is ok to make it enough of a pain in the ass so that Joe Schmoe can't pirate a game without a relatively in depth Google search.

The trick is to make it so that the people who are pirating the software are the people who wouldn't have bought it no matter what. The ideal situation is for the vast majority of your pirates to be the people who are choosing not between buying the game or pirating it but rather choosing between pirating it or doing nothing at all. In the end, they just aren't your customers and nothing you can do will change that.

That being the case, the last thing you want to do is create a situation where your actual potential customers become disenchanted with buying your stuff and resort to piracy for either convenience or just to give you the middle finger. That's why many of the draconian measures of DRM are not a viable option for fighting piracy.

[Sabz5150]

Are you sure about that? I'm not being flippant here, either. I'm genuinely doubtful that DRM actually helps increase a publisher's/developer's profits in any significant way. Look at what happened with Spore on Amazon. I think that debacle convinced at least a few people who would have bought the game to either not spend the money at all or seek out an exploit. So in the case of Spore, DRM either pushed away potential customers or created more pirates. How does either result help increase revenue?

You could argue that DRM forces people to buy a legit copy but I get the impression that the number of people who would have pirated the game if DRM were not present who now, because of DRM, end up actually going out to buy the game make up an infantesimal percentage. I would certainly venture a guess that it makes up a smaller percentage than the above scenarios.

If DRM were horrible for the end user but amazingly good for the publisher then I could at least understand why it would stick around. But DRM doesn't appear to be good for anybody. And because it's still relatively new publishers haven't entirely gotten the memo yet but they're gradually growing more privy to the problems. EA did sort of address the Spore fiasco.

What other reason would a developer or publisher cling so tightly to:

An antipiracy method that clearly isn't...

Something that is so damning to their reputation...

And causes frustration within their userbase, often to the point of never buying their software again...

Look at Epic. They've got these peoples' money, so they just dish up the "We're working on it" response to EVERY SINGLE (LEGAL) INSTALLED INSTANCE BREAKING AT ONCE. Imagine what Ford would do if Monday morning every single F-150 refused to start. I don't care if "it's just a game", it's a product which is not operating in the manner advertised and subsequently sold upon.

What we need is an electronic version of lemon laws. If Epic AND ITS DEVELOPERS were held legally and financially responsible, I promise you that this would never happen again.

But there's no motivation to actually care about the installed base. Not when they're swimming in the consumers' cash. They're "working on it".

[TonyTheTiger]

What other reason would a developer or publisher cling so tightly to:

An antipiracy method that clearly isn't...

Something that is so damning to their reputation...

And causes frustration within their userbase, often to the point of never buying their software again...

It sounds like a good idea on paper, sure. DRM = Less Piracy = More Revenue. But it also sounded good on paper to give out subprime mortgage loans all willy nilly over the last few years and look where that got us. I think we need to discard this idea that the people at the top always do what's best for them. Sometimes they actually don't know what they're doing. I'm betting on DRM being counterproductive to what publishers are aiming at and it's only recently that they're realizing that's the case.

[Sabz5150]

It sounds like a good idea on paper, sure. DRM = Less Piracy = More Revenue. But it also sounded good on paper to give out subprime mortgage loans all willy nilly over the last few years and look where that got us. I think we need to discard this idea that the people at the top always do what's best for them. Sometimes they actually don't know what they're doing. I'm betting on DRM being counterproductive to what publishers are aiming at and it's only recently that they're realizing that's the case.

I think publishers and developers need to be held liable when they violate their own terms and services... just like the consumers are when they violate them. Again, if pub/dev assess were on the line, this would NEVER happen.

They are getting away with this because they can, because we let them. I say we break out the job axe and make a few examples. It's the only way this will be solved.

[s1lence]

This is awesome, I was just going to start to play it again. Now I get to screw around with the clock.

I really like some of the posts in the thread on Epic, about how consoles suck and PC gaming is where its at.

[Push Upstairs]

DRM is probably the last ditch effort to try and keep PC gaming as a "walk into the store, buy game, play game" industry, because if the market keeps shrinking (again, minus MMORPGS) who will put their game on the PC except for small indie developers?

If big developers insist that DRM be placed on their games then I welcome smaller developers making games for the PC. I think what has been forgotten in the video game realm is that you don't *HAVE* to blow millions to make a great game.

Does anyone think that if the costs to make a game were less, that a push for DRM implementation would go away?

[calthaer]

There is the possibility that PCs could become a hotbed of indie activity with loads of unique game ideas. Flash games are already well on their way to becoming that in a lot of ways, with great games like Shift, Chronotron, Bubble Tanks 2, Kongai, and even quirky titles like "I Wish I Were the Moon."

The low bar for entry means that small groups with great ideas can execute them. Games like Aquaria, Darwinia, and Space Rangers 2 are some real gems that probably wouldn't have seen the light of day on one of the major consoles.

[SegaAges]

Well, before you buy a game, you should try to find a way to read the eula for it. Even if you FAIL to do that, read the eula before you hit the friendly next button to install. When you install it, you agree to their EULA. Some installs you click on a big I Accept, or it will say that by clicking next, you agree to it.

Case in point.

Spore EULA information regarding copy protection when people say that it was NOT TOLD TO THEM:


"Technical Protection Measures. Our Software uses access control and copy protection technology. An internet connection is required to authenticate the Software and verify your license. If you are not connected to the Internet, you will not be able to use the Software until you reestablish an internet connection and verify the license. The first end user of this License can install and authenticate the Software on a set number of machines which may vary by product. If the Software permits access to additional online features, only one copy of the Software may access those features at one time. Additional terms and registration may be required to access online services and to download Software updates and patches. Only licensed software can be used to access online services, and download updates and patches. If you disable or otherwise tamper with the technical protection measures, the Software will not function properly."


I did not have easy access through google searching for the GoW eula, but look through it and I bet you will find something very similar.

Now, the only problem with GoW is thatthe eula is not very easy to find online. For something like spore, it was not hard at all to track it down.

Now if you have no access to a eula until you purchase a game, then I do see that as a problem.

What they should do instead is simply have a website or something where you can read the eula before you purchase.

People will be mad, but if you agree to the terms within the eula, then that sucks for you, because the company will simply come back and say, "Well, within the EULA, we actually tell you about copy protection that we put on there. So since when you installed it and said that you agreed to the terms, then that means that you read them."

Yes, I read through eulas before I install stuff. Apparently many people do not because they assume it is not that important. I tell you what, without tweaking your system, go ahead and try to play GoW. Maybe you should have checked the eula.

Yes, there is no way of knowing that the certificate would go out, but within a eula, it will say that it uses special copy protection either way, regardless of what kind is used

[esquire]

Or you could... i dunno... Not play games which use copy protections you don't agree with.

You have 3 option. Buy the game, pirate the game, or don't play the game at all.

If you buy the game, you show the publishers you are fine with the copy protection system they're using, and they're free to keep using it.

If you pirate the game, the developers are going to keep licensing harsher DRM schemes to try and stop you. In which case, you're just making it worse for yourself. Unfortunately this path requires a sacrifice on your part.

If you don't buy it or pirate it, publishers will start to see that they need to make drastic changes in how they treat their customers.

" A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

I'm just a little curious. Why does it have to be a one-way street with the burden falling on the consumer?

For instance, you could apply the same logic and reasoning and place the burden on the developer or publisher. They could have 3 choices

1. Develop and publish a very good game that is not crap or rushed out with bugs, and requiring an immediate patch. A game that a good majority of people will like and spend their hard earned money on willingly. For example, see any game by Blizzard. Also, I read in PC Gamer that despite the DRM issue, Spore was one of the top selling games last year, which begs the question why DRM was even needed in the first place.

2. Develop and/or publish a half-ass effort and cover your ass by putting DRM in the product. Then when the game is cracked almost immediately like any other copy protection scheme you can blame piracy for low sales/revenue, and not the fact that you fucked up.

3. If piracy is so rampant and making it so difficult to make a profit developing and/or publishing PC Games, get out of the market, just like any other sane capitalist would in any other market.

The whole DRM thing makes me wonder what will happen to these games 5 or 10 years from now when the game is no longer supported or the publisher out of business. The games will be completely worthless. One could say that you got your money's worth if you played it that long. Nevertheless, classic games are classic for a reason. I still like to play Baldur's Gate II, Planescape Torment, Fallout, Red Alert 2, Quake II and Return to Castle Wolfenstein to this day. I would be upset if I could not play them.

Lastly, I am surprised no one has pointed this out yet. Was it not EPIC's own Cliffy B whining and complaining about piracy on the PC and how it's the reason that GOW 2 will not be released on that platform? Nice calling the kettle black Cliffy B.

[SegaAges]

I didn't know about cliffy b saying that.

Piracy is an excuse for poor sales. As you pointed out, Spore. I played the hell out of Spore for a good month straight, and still mess with it every once in awhile.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that there was DRM in consoles as well (well, the 360 in particular).

People bash pc gaming and pc game pirating simply because it is tougher to pirate games for the consoles. I am not saying it is not easy or whatever, I am just saying it is easier to do it on a pc game.

What people fail to realize that is pc gaming is still very viable.

Just because you are an anti pc fanboy, does not mean that pc gaming is bad. It is the same thing I hear about people giving Sega some smack talk.

You can't discredit something because you don't like it.

You know, I don't knock some heavy drugs. I know they are bad, but I have never used them, so who am I to say that it is bad.

I could sit here and list off badass exclusive to pc only game that are not just rts, fps, or mmo. I could, but there is no point, because the anti-fanboys have made up their mind, and every time that something bad happens with 1 game (AAA or no) it just throws more fuel in the fire.

"I will never buy a new pc game"
"pc games are ALL riddled with malware copy protection"
"pc gaming needs to die"

I have heard this all before, and I see it as another rant from an anti fanboy. Nothing more.

Not all new pc games are riddled with copy protection. Not all pc games suck. Sure, compare the ports, I don't really care. I would rather play a game that is not a port.

You know, I don't know much about which Wii games are good outside of a few 1st party titles, but should I negate the Wii platform completely simply because I don't like it, and then continue time and time again to make EXCUSES for not liking them?

Do I blame piracy for anything? no.
Metallica can blame piracy all they want for crappy album sales, but in the end, their album sucked balls. It had nothing to do with piracy. People did not want to pay money for a pile of shit.

Over and over again I keep seeing the same people going over why piracy is bad, but at the same token, completely shooting down an entire platform where piracy is running rampart.

Love it or hate it, pc gaming has been around since the dawn of video games, and it will stay until tyhe fall of video games (unlikely for there to be a fall, but I won't negate a possibility). PC gaming will never go away. If you don't like it, then too bad.

You can't sit there and try to say pc gaming sucks because of ports. No No No!. It does not work that way. You completely negate every other pc game by saying that pc games suck because companies have no idea how to port over a 360 or ps3 game. What about the games specifically for pc? Oh wait, they all have drm. Every single pc game that has ever come out that is compatible with xp or vista has some sort of drm which completely trashes your computer. You are right.

Lumping everything together for one specific platform only shows me that you are just simply flaming. Nothing more. You are only out to get a rise out of people. That is all. Anybody who thinks that I am just trying to put fuel to the flames can discuss further with me through pm's. Basically, many of the posts are using this as an excuse to say that all pc gaming sucks.

"Oh, GoW has crappy DRM, so that means that pc gaming sucks. When will it die. There is nothing worthwhile on a pc. There is no way I would ever get enjoyment from a pc game"

meh

Back to the subject at hand. It is a shame that the situation happened. It really is. But in the end, all it is, is a port. I would much rather play a fps or a 3rd person shooter specific to the pc, than to play a port. Why? I am not flaming the pc, but I own a 360, and would much rather play it on the original.

I guess I am old school. I don't like using emulators just for the sole fact that I like playing it on the original system.

Now have a nice day you guys.

[Push Upstairs]

I have a small collection of PC games that I play for awhile and then put it away for a year or so until I get the desire to play it again. The main game that comes to mind is "Age of Empires 2". I've installed this game on at least two computers (not at the same time, just systems I've had over the years) and I've installed/uninstalled this game at least 10 times over the years.


But the issue with DRM is still this: I'm not going to spend money on a game only to be given the "guilty until proven innocent" treatment.

[SegaAges]

I have a small collection of PC games that I play for awhile and then put it away for a year or so until I get the desire to play it again. The main game that comes to mind is "Age of Empires 2". I've installed this game on at least two computers (not at the same time, just systems I've had over the years) and I've installed/uninstalled this game at least 10 times over the years.


But the issue with DRM is still this: I'm not going to spend money on a game only to be given the "guilty until proven innocent" treatment.

As you should, but not all newer games have the insane drm that gets the headlines of the gaming world

[Push Upstairs]

Well, not having Windows kinda stops me from doing gaming via PC.

But if there was/is a game I was interested in, and I found out it had some stupid DRM, I wouldn't buy it. If a developer/company/whoever can't trust me, why should I trust them?

[Sabz5150]

Yes, there is no way of knowing that the certificate would go out, but within a eula, it will say that it uses special copy protection either way, regardless of what kind is used

Honestly I could care less if there are copy protection methods implemented in a piece of software. I do care, however, if said copy protection stops me from using said piece of legally purchased software.

Do what you want to make sure that your software is used legally, but don't get in the way of my gaming while doing it. Don't cripple the one reason I gave you my money. That's a surefire way to make sure that I don't give you more money in the future.

[Rob2600]

The people that LEGALLY PURCHASED THIS GAME are being screwed and given the "Oh we'll fix it" schpeel.

This also applies to the Xbox 360. Microsoft released a broken product and the people who bought it have to ship it back and wait while Microsoft "fixes" it.


The [company] is a douchebag and you should punish them by not buying, or playing, any of their products anymore.

Agreed.

[esquire]

Well, before you buy a game, you should try to find a way to read the eula for it. Even if you FAIL to do that, read the eula before you hit the friendly next button to install. When you install it, you agree to their EULA. Some installs you click on a big I Accept, or it will say that by clicking next, you agree to it.

Case in point.

Spore EULA information regarding copy protection when people say that it was NOT TOLD TO THEM:


I did not have easy access through google searching for the GoW eula, but look through it and I bet you will find something very similar.

Now, the only problem with GoW is thatthe eula is not very easy to find online. For something like spore, it was not hard at all to track it down.

Now if you have no access to a eula until you purchase a game, then I do see that as a problem.

What they should do instead is simply have a website or something where you can read the eula before you purchase.

People will be mad, but if you agree to the terms within the eula, then that sucks for you, because the company will simply come back and say, "Well, within the EULA, we actually tell you about copy protection that we put on there. So since when you installed it and said that you agreed to the terms, then that means that you read them."

Yes, I read through eulas before I install stuff. Apparently many people do not because they assume it is not that important. I tell you what, without tweaking your system, go ahead and try to play GoW. Maybe you should have checked the eula.

Yes, there is no way of knowing that the certificate would go out, but within a eula, it will say that it uses special copy protection either way, regardless of what kind is used

Well the major flaw is that you do not find out what is in the EULA until 1) after you paid for the software, and 2) already opened the product making it literally impossible to return the product if you do not agree to it. And I shouldn't have to search on the internet hoping that someone has posted the EULA. Whatever happened to up front full disclosure? I like the analogy of buying a car, but finding out the terms of product after you buy and get it home after of course using it and making it impossible to return, save for lemon laws. In what other universe is this acceptable? We have state and federal consumer protection laws that protect us from this garbage and they have been enforced in every other industry. Why aren't software developers and publishers held to the same standard?

[Rob2600]

Well the major flaw is that you do not find out what is in the EULA until 1) after you paid for the software, and 2) already opened the product making it literally impossible to return the product if you do not agree to it. And I shouldn't have to search on the internet hoping that someone has posted the EULA. Whatever happened to up front full disclosure? I like the analogy of buying a car, but finding out the terms of product after you buy and get it home after of course using it and making it impossible to return, save for lemon laws. In what other universe is this acceptable? We have state and federal consumer protection laws that protect us from this garbage and they have been enforced in every other industry. Why aren't software developers and publishers held to the same standard?

I agree. Software publishers will never change as long as they keep getting away with nonsense. As ProgrammingAce wrote, the only way they'll change is if people stop giving them money and using their products.


It's weird though...if EULAs are printed on the box, would that really stop people from buying DRMed software? I mean, people know that cigarettes are bad, but they continue to buy them even though warnings are printed on the box!

[Sabz5150]

This also applies to the Xbox 360. Microsoft released a broken product and the people who bought it have to ship it back and wait while Microsoft "fixes" it.

Note what I do not own for that exact reason. And if I'm not mistaken, there's quite a bit of legal action at work concerning that... most importantly the fact that they willingly shipped a defective product.

[Sabz5150]

It's weird though...if EULAs are printed on the box, would that really stop people from buying DRMed software? I mean, people know that cigarettes are bad, but they continue to buy them even though warnings are printed on the box!

Perhaps for the same reasons.

[monkeychemist]

Note what I do not own for that exact reason. And if I'm not mistaken, there's quite a bit of legal action at work concerning that... most importantly the fact that they willingly shipped a defective product.

I also do not and will never own a microsoft product because of those reasons...but every time I write about it here I'm the bad guy with my never ending rant about MS

[Sabz5150]

I also do not and will never own a microsoft product because of those reasons...but every time I write about it here I'm the bad guy with my never ending rant about MS

I've been dealing with Microsoft's issues since Win 3.11 and the nightmare known as Windows 95. If you've been in the game that long, the Xbox360 is no surprise. Annoying as hell, but far from surprising.

Again, this is a clear case of the manufacturer treading on the backs of the consumer to get that almighty bottom line. I don't pay to deal with DRM bullsh!t, I don't pay to ship my console across the continental US a half-dozen times. I put my 48+ hours a week hard earned money down to play video games. Nothing more, nothing less. Deliver or give me my money back.

If Microsoft were in the business of making ANYTHING else, they'd be bankrupt in a month. The old joke says that the day that MS makes a product that doesn't suck is the day that make vacuum cleaners. I believe it.

[Push Upstairs]

I think the XBOX is alright, the 360 is a different story.

[SegaAges]

I do agree that there should be very easy access to read a eula so that you have the choice on whether or not you even want to install your opened product.

[TonyTheTiger]

I know that if you buy a computer and open the box and then read the paperwork and decide you don't agree to the terms you can pack up the box and ship it back for a refund. I wonder if that also works for software. It would be an interesting experiment if I bought a game from Best Buy or somewhere, opened it, and then returned the opened product demanding my money back because I don't agree to the EULA.

[Skelix]

Not to bring up DRM and PC games and evil etc, but figure this needed closure to those who actually care about playing the game (and keeping date intact so they can play it on Live). Sorry if this was already posted but didn't see it.

Update available, and no it didn't reset your single player campaign!

http://gearsofwar.xbox.com/Templates/Secondary.aspx?id=1364