EMA Suggests Point-Of-Sale Game Activation To Fight Piracy [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

Gamasutra reports on a set of standards (PDF) published by the Entertainment Merchants Association to promote the use of technology that would "disable" games and DVDs until they are activated when purchased. "The effort is codenamed 'Project Lazarus,' and the EMA says it's assembled a consortium of retailers, home video companies and video game publishers to see how easily such 'benefit denial technology' could be implemented, and to evaluate possible cost-benefit analyses. The initiative is similar to security tags used in clothing retail that spill ink on garments if they're forcibly removed, thereby destroying the item. In such a situation, shoplifting is discouraged by implementing a solution that only the retailer can remove at the point of sale."
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
</img>


More...

[Drifter 2000]

How exactly would something like this stop piracy? Once someone buys the game they could go home and throw it up on the internet. This is ignoring the fact that a lot of recent titles (Spore) seem to have leaked right out of the development studios themselves.

[Oobgarm]

Could be something far off in the future, but I don't think current games and tech would benefit from it. A system would have to connect to the net to verify a validation code (or said code is printed on the receipt) before it ran the game.

I personally think it's a great idea. There are some pricey tax software programs currently on the market that do exactly this. Look at it like a pre-paid phone minutes card or an iTunes card-no value until activated at register.

Though, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it would be cracked using firmware exploits or something similar on the system side. It would curtail point-of-sale theft, but software piracy would continue.

[esquire]

This sounds like more of an effort to prevent resale (Gamestop) rather than piracy. With all the talk recently (See Epic and Bungie rants), I would not be surprised if some console games go the way of Steam, whereby you need an online activation code, or need to call and register for one over the phone. Of course this would suck and I am utterly against such a thing.

[kedawa]

Nothing will stop piracy. Ever.
This is just one more headache for paying customers to have to deal with.

[nintendoeats]

Great. just great. something else to go wrong. This is only going to encourage piracy, don't people get that? Even if the goal is to prevent resale or theft, the result will be less sales all around. Why do game companies feel the need to shit on us all the time? yah, they make great games, but isn't that enough for them? do they have to have our frustration as well as our money?

[XYXZYZ]

This sounds great! But I wish they would be more thorough; I think that you should have not only point of sale activation, but also when you buy it, it only stays active for a limited time. That way, you would have to call the publisher and buy the game again in order to play it. See, even if it's stolen you'd have to pay for it eventually. Every game should require a monthly fee. Even sudoku on the DS or those Pac Man TV games.

And even better, consoles should come equipped with fingerprint scanning technology. When you play a game, your fingerprint data must match the code of the fingerprint that was scanned and locked to that copy when you bought it. And there would be periodic checks throughout the game in addition to when you load the game in the first place. This would be a great way to stop reselling, and that will allow game companies to focus on higher quality products and provide a better experience for us, the consumer.

[XYXZYZ]

Why do game companies feel the need to shit on us all the time? yah, they make great games, but isn't that enough for them? do they have to have our frustration as well as our money?

I barely know what I'm talking about here, but I think it's because the shareholders want it, and the shareholders don't know a damn thing about piracy or care about screwing the paying customer.

[nintendoeats]

thanks XYXZYZ, youv'e just exashurbated my anger. I know your being sarcastic but that last part...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

[The 1 2 P]

I think on paper it's a fairly good idea. However, getting it properly implemented is another thing entirely. And even if everything goes smoothly, someone who pays for it could easily make bootlegs to give to their friends or sell online. Like others have already said(and to paraphrase in my own way) boredom+ignorance+idiot(though technically sound idiot)=piracy forever

[Push Upstairs]

Another hoop I, the *paying* customer, have to jump through to play the game I paid for.

We'll see how good this works the first time some minimum wage worker forgets to activate it and ('tis the season) come xmas day, the game doesn't work.

[Press_Start]

First, they want a "profit" for used games and now we have to ASK permission to play them?! I swear these companies are becoming more and more greedy like the music industry and their RIAA hounds. What's next? Coin-op consoles?

[Rob2600]

What's next? Coin-op consoles?

That would be funny. I imagine someone coming to my apartment every week to collect the quarters.

[Half Japanese]

I personally think it's a great idea.

Please elaborate on how this is in any way a great idea. It's another pointless hurdle for paying customers, and the annoyance of people who are paying for your product should always be of more concern than speedbumping people who haven't been buying your product in the first place. I also have no doubt that should this practice come to pass that it will eventually be used to curb or outright prevent the sales of used games; a business developers have made no secret of acknowledging that they despise.

I remember reading on Joystiq a while back that many developers are now including one-time use download cards as value-adds in their new product, giving incentive to buy a new copy as opposed to a used one (and when the difference at Gamestop is $5, who wouldn't just buy a new one?). This is a much more respectable approach, but they should also offer the content unlocked by the download card as DLC, so they're still seeing a few bucks on used game sales from players who want that extra content. On the other hand, I'd hate to see this strategy work as a corporate dick move, similar to EA's shenanigans with the last Battlefield game.

[Push Upstairs]

Its amazing how "fighting piracy" sounds more like "fleecing paying customers for all they got".

[Oobgarm]

Please elaborate on how this is in any way a great idea.

Simply, it reduces point-of-sale theft. No way it would ever stop piracy, as nothing ever does.

Every game, when purchased, has a unique ID code activated. The console, which *should* be online(which is why this wouldn't be feasible for a long time, if ever) would verify the code and play the game, storing the code for future use. If the game was traded to a friend or retail store, the code would still be active and usable since the game was actually purchased at retail.

It sounds like a pain in the ass, but retail activation takes like 5-10 seconds, and console makers could make verification seamless and virtually invisible to the player.

GameStop would still be able to continue business, but it would take them longer to process a trade since they'd have to verify each game. But then they would at least know the games they're taking aren't stolen from a store.

If done right, it would work with little to no noticeable change for the consumer. Like 1 2 P said, it looks good on paper, but it's all about implementation.

[Berserker]

Going over the actual "Lazarus Standards", a few things in particular stand out. Firstly, repeated mention of a "database", which I'm assuming is meant to be a centralized one, that is to be "maintained at both store and enterprise level" which, combined with what's listed under "Valuable Additions" as goals of establishing both a "Unique ID" and "Merchant identifier", seem to lay a fairly clear foundation for a potentially lucrative data-mining operation; especially if payment is done by check or credit/debit card, so that more personally-identifying information could be extracted and paired with it.

Also, under "Minimum Threshold Requirements" is listed the point that they must have the "Ability to deactivate and reactivate" games at will. Now, that requirement by itself is a bit too open-ended to know exactly how they'd go about implementing that, but depending on how closely they would be collaborating with the software publishers themselves, this point could potentially have some serious implications. For instance, if they teamed up with the publisher of a particular game and came up with a way to deactivate and reactivate your game over the internet, that's basically an open-door to be held at ransom. "We noticed that you're not doing what we want lately, so we're going to deactivate your game. When you do what we want/pay us what we want, then we might reactivate your game."

Overall, it doesn't seem like a very exciting prospect for the consumer.

[nintendoeats]

Do gamestop employees have a union? can they go on striek to prevent this system being implemented?

[XYXZYZ]

A database? So they're going to have a profile on you, what kind of games you like, when and where you buy them, and how often? And they can cross reference, say "People who bought ABC also bought XYZ" so they'll send you advertising (through the console) for XYZ in case you don't have it yet. I wonder what else they can do with a profile- "XYXZYZ only buys games that feature an abundance of bouncy breasted female characters, buys them at 3:00 AM at Wal-Mart, so he's definitely single and perhaps a dope fiend. Let's turn that data over to the Marine recruiters." and then I'll get a call from Col. Murdoch saying "Son, I understand you don't have much to live for, and we need all the help we can get fighting Iran and Pakistan and Russia, and whoever else the CIA has equipped to fight us in WWIII. Report for your physical on Monday!" And they can also sell that data to drug companies, civil engineers and junk food distributors.

[Oobgarm]

Oof. That extra stuff bites. I was just going on the basic principle of it and didn't really look deeply into it.