If they do it like other, similar systems, you can request additional activations. Heck, GalCiv II / Sins have limited activations -- its just that the limit is set high enough you don't run into it very easily.

Its just a matter of how its done. Activations are a (big) annoyance, but livable if I don't have to deal with a thrice-damned CD in the drive.

"EA teach sipert, no english pease."

Common sense would be to strip all copy protection. However, it's significantly less (Edit)disagreeable. I will inevitably get a crack for the game if I run into an issue with the security. When the three activations are up, bypass them. Screw the phone call.

The phone home component is the idealogical sticking point that will not be compromised on. With that in it, I refuse to support the company. With that out, it's simply a nuisance and a waste of their time and money, instead of an ongoing objectionable act.

I object to being checked up on every five days, it amounts to spying. They can still drop dead for causing me grief but I wont mind giving them money in the meantime.

Wait a minute...what they had was beyond horrible. Now what they're rolling back to is just as bad as what was used on Bioshock and why I didn't buy that game either.

I'm starting to think this was done on purpose to soften people up to the idea of their latest copy-protection schemes. Next time we'll see them come out with a scheme that checks every time you play, and then they'll roll it back to the once every 10 days thing. They'll shock people and then pull back a bit. In some ways, this is likely a calculated move I would expect.

When their protection software requires me to activate, installs monitoring software onto my computer, or disrupts other programs or hardware on my system, then there isn't a chance I'll buy the game. I skipped Bioshock for its copy-protection, but I'm more interested in Mass Effect. That doesn't mean I'll buy it, but I may wait until it gets halved in price.

For those interested, check out the responses at the Bioware Mass Effect forum: http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewforum.html?forum=125

EA really wanna test the waters on this don't they. I hope they take this hostile reaction to heart that this is not how you treat potential customers. Particularly when your patch / post-release support history is pretty bad.

 

Phazon88: Thanks for that link. Very nice to read.
I think we have to thank StarDock for that. Before GC2 / Sins, people were complaining but didn't have a real argument against DRM. Now customers have seen first hand that there are good products without DRM and their demands did rise. Now customers start asking with confidence for a non-intrusive product. I really enjoy seeing that.

With all due respect, once you buy a single copy of the game, under any circumstances, you should NOT be allowed to install it on more than one or two computers. And while I might understand your concern regarding mis-indentification errors, such as the fact that you will waste 1 of your 3 tries accidently, or even regarding the fact that this is not future proofing of the game at all, since when you'll upgrade your PC you will still have to waste another install of your allowed 3, you still need to remember that this is not a free-pass for you to just buy and install on anything you wish, including your neighbours', your cousins', and your pet dog Timmy's PC. It's a piece of software that people worked very hard for.

And like I said, while I do agree that this is not really future proofing, you still need to remember that the game WILL be eventually cracked, be it a week, a month or even a year after release. The developers only aim is to protect their IP from casual downloaders, what you might call Zero-Day Piracy, in which fans simply cannot wait for the game to get to the stores and want to play it RIGHT NOW, as soon as, or even prior to the release. Stardock solved this by providing their SD central downloading service, but this work model doesn't work for each and every game, I'm afraid, for the same reasons I explained on my previous post.

For the millionth time, I do agree that DRM sucks, and I don't want to jump through hoops in order to play the game I legally purchased just as well as you do, but there aren't that many alternatives to protecting yourself from being robbed of your well-deserved money, if you're a developer. This is not a halfway bad model as you picture it, and unless you pirate your games, this is actually a better alternatives than many other forms of DRM.

I disagree! If I buy the damn thing it is my decision alone what I do with it. Nobody can tell me different. If anybody tries, I'll for sure not buy their game.
See how the DRM with mp3 (not playing on every device) worked. Same goes for games: I buy stuff, that means I own stuff. I own stuff, that means I can do whatever I want with it.
Big company thinks different? Screw them. That means they are never ever getting my money.

You didn't seem to read or notice the rest of my post. Like I said, the game will be eventually cracked, so this entire limit will be rendered sterile in a time period of 2 years. It is basically just to limit you from installing a fresh game on too many computers at once, that's all.

Besides, honestly, did you ever encounter the issue which prevented you from installing the game since you already installed it too many times before? Don't give me that, I'm sure you didn't. This is just an overblown exaggeration, made by pirates or people who simply don't want to be limited in any way, which is really not how it works, or at least not how it shouldn't.

MegaVolt, this is hardly the same MP3-limit issue. You can listen to a song 5 years from purchase, as it really never gets old, but you'll hardly play a game (especially a story-driven RPG like Mass Effect) more than once or twice and that's it. The devs are simply trying to protect their work while it is still sought-after. A year or two from purchase the game will be old news, and will hardly need to be protected, and this is what they're aiming at. And no, you don't own the game, you own the final copy of the game, the product itself. The devs and distributors own the game, and they have, as well as they should, complete power over it, not you, who merely dropped $50 on it.

If the CP system basically forces me to crack my legally purchased product to be able to play it, then I will certainly not purchase it in the first place and start with the cracking right away (meaning: use a pirated version).

Your argument really doesn't make any sense.

Gormoth1, first of all the install limit hampers more than how many machines you wish to play on at the moment. Many gamers will continue to play games several system upgrades into the future.

There is no such thing as good DRM. If I have to register online even one time to just to play the game, it is too many times. I paid for the product, or at the very least use of the product. I should be able to use it however I see fit as long as I am the one using it. I should not have to crack the code or download a patch to use something I legally obtained in a manner that is defined legal and fair use.

Treating customers like criminals is not good business, no matter how lax your measures are. If you give people a quality product that is considered a good value, and provide extras that make it worth registering the product (registering should not affect the product itself, only the extras) then you would find fewer people would pirate and more would buy.

Stardock is a perfect example of how companies should treat consumers to limit piracy. Are you ever going to be entirely free of piracy? No, regardless of what industry you are in, how good your product is or inexpensive there will always be people that are determined not to pay. People have been known to run cables from their neighbors houses for cable, phone, and internet. I have seen people put their trash with other peoples trash so they would not have to pay for it. I have even seen people go to restaurants with the intention of complaining so they could have a free meal.

In general most people are willing to pay for goods and services they feel have quality, value, and convenience. If you take away one or more of those factors people will find other ways to get what they want. DRM takes away portions of all 3. It is used to monitor your use, force you to do things that are unnecessary such as having a CD in the drive, limit the ways it can be used even if those ways are legal and appropriate, limit the potential of the product hence lowering the quality and the value. The fact is the gaming, music, and video industries are creating pirates out of frustrated consumers.

While DRM on computers is bad, DRM for movies is worse. Check out the limitations for Amazon UnBox. DVDs come region coded, encrypted with CSS, and most come in only a Full or Wide screen format. You are forced to see the FBI warnings and Anti-Piracy videos, you have to fight through security tape and cases designed to keep people from stealing the disc and you are forced every so often to buy new DVD players because the encryption has been updated. If you want to play them on your computer it can be even worse. It is no wonder they have such a piracy problem. The only people getting a convenient, quality product at a decent value are the people that didn't pay for it.

Yes, with one caveat: if you change your hardware 'significantly', you may trigger a new activation. Problem is, no one can clear up exactly what will trigger it, and no one has said whether or not reinstalling your OS on the same machine will also require a new activation.

If a game's copy protection has the effect of making my ownership temporary, ie limited installs/activations and the like, then it is effectively a rental, not a purchase. In that case, I will pay exactly what I would pay to rent a game, and nothing more.