I'm sorry mur'phon, I didn't notice the 2 other posts about hacked executables. I just woke up, so I hope you can forgive me ;)

Im pretty sure it's illegal. I did a discusion thread about that way back, and someone throw up a paragraph that said something about you not allowed to have a cracked exe. But that's maybe is diffrence from game to game

Hmmm.... So what about buying MEPC and then getting the hacked .exe so you can play the game whenever, wherever, and on whatever hardware you want? Just a thought. :)
As much as I was eager to play that game, I won't buy and won't play it as a matter of principle...as for the hacked .exe, any discussion about the circumvention of security measures is a no no here :tsk:

How do publishers/developers achieve their goal of only allowing legitimate installations of their PC games to be played?If regularly monitoring my own use of the game is their solution (and using that info for god knows what other purposes), then they lost me. There's got to be some balance between privacy, fair use and copyright protection. Users have rights too. When pirates get a better gaming experience than the legitimate users, we have a problem.

I'd rather have them use StarForce then SecuRom, atleast StarForce doesn't require an active internet connection to validate the game.

But starforce have this nasty habbit of sometimes causing your computer to crash, so I'm not bying anything with it on. Besides, once Stardock turned down an offer from SF to have them "protect" Galactic Civilizations2, SF raved on about how they where helping pirates, and then linked to pirated versions for the game............

There are different SecuROM solutions. Not all of them require a constant check with the server: http://www.securom.com/solution_discbased_drm.asp)

As an example, Oblivion, Kotor, Jade Empire and numerous other games used SecuROM too.

As much as I was eager to play that game, I won't buy and won't play it as a matter of principle... Fair enough. As for myself I don't think I would let the principle get in my way on this one. Since my gaming PC is connected to the Internet though I don't expect I'll need to even go there with MEPC. I didn't have any problems with BioShock so I don't expect I'll have any problems with MEPC either.
If regularly monitoring my own use of the game is their solution (and using that info for god knows what other purposes), then they lost me.
According to Mr. French the only data that will be transmitted to EA's SecuROM servers is the key and a hardware signature. I'm thinking the date needs to be in there somewhere as well.
There's got to be some balance between privacy, fair use and copyright protection. Users have rights too. When pirates get a better gaming experience than the legitimate users, we have a problem.
Indeed, but I was looking for a solution that met the criteria you provided. Providing more detailed criteria for a successful solution doesn't equate to the solution itself. Of course it doesn't seem like anyone has a great or even good solution for the problem now does it? Hence the reason why I said legitimate users are made to suffer while developers and publishers try to find a way to only allow legitimate users to play their PC games. In other words devs and publishers are having to experiment with methods of dealing with the piracy problem.

What I believe you're pointing out is that whatever anti-piracy measures publishers choose to implement in their PC games have to be acceptable to their paying customers. You don't find this method acceptable and while I don't agree I do respect your decision to not purchase MEPC as a result.

According to Mr. French the only data that will be transmitted to EA's SecuROM servers is the key and a hardware signature. I'm thinking the date needs to be in there somewhere as well.

If at some point someone finds out what the packets that are sent contain and the info is truly limited to what Mr. French indicated I might reconsider my decision (but I don't think it will because I dislike a system where I have to constantly prove my innocence and the 3 activations limit which I think meet normal consumers expectations of the use of such a product) .The thing is that I have a hard time trusting Sony (SecuROM) with that due to some past events (XCP fiasco anyone? the MicroVault USB stick?) and the fact that they don't seem to hesitate to use that info for marketing purposes too (see the report in my post above, pages 50 - 52, well 60-62 in Acrobat reader). They ask us not to use copied software and yet they don't seem to care much about their own legal obligations and the individuals' rights when it comes to "protecting" their products...

In any event it is interesting to read the perspective of CD Projekt's VP of PR & Marketing on the DRM and piracy issues: http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/04/16/cd_projekt_interview/)

Edit: and Stardock's CEO opinion: http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Piracy_PC_Gaming)

Well D3, you should be somewhat pleased to note that the objecting voices of the disenfranchised have been heard. Jay Watamaniuk announced earlier today (http://masseffect.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=629059&forum=125&sp=0) that MEPC will no longer require the game to re-authenticate with EA's SecuROM servers every 10 days.
- MEPC will require a one-time activation with EA's SecuROM servers after installation and before the game can be played.
- MEPC will still be limited to 3 activations per game copy. EA support will need to be contacted for additional activations.

I'm still trying to determine whether or not reinstallation of MEPC on a PC using the same hardware configuration as it was when MEPC was originally installed constitutes an additional activation.

"MEPC will still be limited to 3 activations per game copy. EA support will need to be contacted for additional activations."

- If they remove the limit, I'm sold. I refuse to call anyone in order to be able to play the game. I have no need for a game that will stop working when I change enough parts in system, or when I reformat my drive a few times. Maybe they should start calling it MEPC OEM :p (they would have to lover the price, though :D).

I knew Bioware would listen to their fans, I bet EA was the one who wanted the copy protection system in the first place.

This isn't so much about Mass Effect, but more of a rant about gameprotection in general.

I started to think alittle about this with gameprotection, and came to the conclusion that there isn't any profit, whatsoever in having protection. They can only lose customers, not gain any. Let's see it this way. It will take max a week before gamecrackers release a working game, without the protection. And a week is a pretty naive number, it usaly just take a few days.

Do you think people that was going to download the game, will go and buy the game instead just because they need to wait a few more days ? The answer is no, they will wait those extra days, then download it and play it without the gameprotection. And what about those buyers ? They will suffer with the activation things and other stuff the gameprotection does. And in some cases, people that was sure they would buy the game won't do it because they feel it's not worth all that trouble or other reason (One of this people is Darth333). So the conclusion of this is that they only lose customers, not gaining.

But then people say, but they are protecting the first days of sales. But that is wrong, because those people that downloaded still woulden't buy it. See the above argument

All this talk about ME makes me want to fire up my 360 and finally finish my third game... playing on hardcore and sitting on level 54... trying to hit level 60... long story :D

so I take it there is a addon for it coming? cool :D and who cares if it costs money :D I think I have 600 MS pts sitting there doing nothing so what's another 3000 or what not...

lets go! :D

Really, is there anything Jennifer Hale HASN'T done?
I guess I am the only one then!

*chortle*

That the 10-day check was removed is definitely good news, though I'm still pissed off with the 3 installs limit. I'm not going to call EA to get additional installs.

I'm not sure I get this game, even though I was looking forward to playing it for months.

what's this ten day check and three install limit stuff?

Bioware and EA wanted to ship Mass Effect with a new SecuRom protection, which requires an active internet connection to validate the game each 10 days. Alot of people became pissed by it and ranted on the official forums. Bioware and EA removed the 10 day revalidation, but they didn't remove the 3 times install limit.

If you want to know more about, check the official Mass Effect PC Forums.

very nice, but its rather pointless for me since i already have the game for the 360. still, at least it will be easier to snipe and pull of headshots by aiming with the mouse. i just wish Bioware was going to add something more to the PC version aside from an improved/optimized GUI (as stated in the announcement). if there's some nice mods out there, i'll probably pick it up eventually, but otherwise, its a rather moot point for me.

I read from somewhere that the biggest difference's gonna be the ability to issue individual commands to squad members.

From 1up.com (http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3166467) :

"Perhaps the most welcome change in the game is the ability to issue separate commands to individual squad members. The 360 version limited players to issuing a single group command, causing both backup members to behave the same. This made little sense when your party consisted of, say, Wrex and Tali -- the former being a powerful melee meat-shield type, while the later is a fragile hacker who specializes in sniper rifles and other ranged attacks. Regardless of how you issued their orders, that particular group configuration would never perform optimally, as one or the other would be placed in a position that made poor use of their skills. That won't be an issue in the PC version, as you're now free to send Wrex or Ashley charging into battle while fragile support types like Tali and Kaidan can hang back and fight more cautiously."

Think only time i used the squad attack was in "Bring down the sky" at the minefield. Those snipers on the other side of the field annoyed me when i tryed to navigate the mines, and then i notice my squad didnt set of the mines ^^

Edit: and Stardock's CEO opinion: http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Piracy_PC_Gaming)
Nice article; I think this guy's on to something.

'Course he is. It's Stardock. The man is a walking prophet, preaching the sheer idiocy of DRM.

Now, all we need to do is pit the incarnations of Stardock and Starforce in some kind of arena and have them fight it out.

At 10 days from release, Mass Effect for PC has gone gold (http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=629847&forum=41) and is now in manufacturing. I've never paid close attention before but 10 days to make disks, package them, and ship them to retailers seems to be rather... compressed. As long as I can pick up my game at my local retail outlet on May 28 though I'm good. :D

Meh, atleast you can get it around the 28th. I have to wait till the 6th of June, but my local game shop said they will start selling Mass Effect on the 4th :D

I fully understand that desire of developers/publishers to protect their investment, but the security measures on this thing cross the line. The three activation limit, especially. Call me crazy, but I think I'll take a pass on this one.

Meh, stop bitching about the damn copy protection. Be glad they are releasing it for PC.

Well, i don't like being treated as a criminal when i but my games, when those that download it wont have any problems with it because they don't need a activation code and so on.

I don't get it, what's the big deal? They already removed the 10 day revalidation. All that is left is the 3 times install limit. Which only applies if you upgrade or build a new system. You can install it a million times on your current rig if you never upgrade it!

I don't get it, what's the big deal? They already removed the 10 day revalidation. All that is left is the 3 times install limit. Which only applies if you upgrade or build a new system. You can install it a million times on your current rig if you never upgrade it!
Oh sure, you bought it but you can't use it as you will? No big deal.

Why even have such a system ? It don't do anyone any good to have that system. I can understand the antipiracysystem, even if i don't think that work either if you read my post that is a little above. But a 3time limit is just stupid.

What annoys me most is that the pirates get a game that works without any limits or protection programs that sometimes is very bad for the computer. Some of those protection program do so you most turn of multiple other programs (Like daemon tools and some other), and the pirates wont have those problems. And if i want to install Mass Effect after some years have passed, i don't want contact EA just so i can play the game. I still reinstall Kotor, and i have changed my system multiples time since i first played it, i wouldent even bother if i would need to contact support to play the game again

Bioware said that if EA will shutdown the servers, they would release a patch that would remove the check.

I realize there are many people that oppose the anti-piracy DRM measures BioWare and EA implemented for Mass Effect for PC. I am glad BioWare listened to the outcry from their fanbase and removed the 10 days re-authentication period for MEPC. However I don't think a 1st tier publisher like EA is ever going to pull a Stardock and release their PC games without any anti-piracy features. So, if given a choice between dealing with a 3 activations limit or not getting Mass Effect for PC then I'll take the limit. PC is my gaming platform of choice and I'm willing to deal with some inconvenience as opposed to not being able to play games like MEPC at all. Of course there are those that aren't willing to accept any restrictions at any level and I understand that. I just hope those individuals consider the fact that piracy is a huge problem for PC gaming and developers/publishers are trying to find ways to prevent illegitimate use of their games and only allow their paying customers to enjoy their work. An ideal solution has not yet been found and so we're left to deal with the process of trial and error as such a solution is sought for. BioWare and EA took it too far with their latest attempt and due to the overwhelming opposition had to take a step back. But until piracy is greatly reduced or eliminated publishers and developers are going to continue to wage war against piracy and as oft happens in war there are innocents that get caught in the middle.

But the thing is it just the innocents that suffer, and not the enemy (Pirates). If the antipiracy program would work, then i wouldent whinne so much about it, but the thing is it don't work for more then 3days most of the time, and absolutely not more then a week.

@Ghost Down: At least that is a good thing, but if EA don't shut down the server it will still be the same problem in two years for some people, or less time for some

But the thing is it just the innocents that suffer, and not the enemy (Pirates). If the antipiracy program would work, then i wouldent whinne so much about it, but the thing is it don't work for more then 3days most of the time, and absolutely not more then a week.

Gamespot posted an interview (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183311.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;2) with Martin Slater of 2K Australia (publishers of BioShock). They were thrilled that the game was not cracked for thirteen days, though they took a beating over their DRM (also SecuRom, IIRC). If that is a successful time frame to make money on a game, I can see in the incentive of the publishers. After all, as many have pointed out in this thread and others, it is not currently possible to create an uncrackable game. But, two weeks sounds like it might be do-able. If that is the difference between profit and loss (or at least seen as such by the publishers), that's an awful big incentive to pack the game with a monster DRM system.

I dunno. As much as I hate to say it, I don't think that invasive DRMs are going anywhere anytime real soon.

Looks like the consumers (us) have a choice to make. Buy it and put up with the draconian DRM or simply don't get the game.

So, if given a choice between dealing with a 3 activations limit or not getting Mass Effect for PC then I'll take the limit.
Seconded.

Can't argue with that.

Gamespot posted an interview (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183311.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;2) with Martin Slater of 2K Australia (publishers of BioShock). They were thrilled that the game was not cracked for thirteen days, though they took a beating over their DRM (also SecuRom, IIRC). If that is a successful time frame to make money on a game, I can see in the incentive of the publishers. After all, as many have pointed out in this thread and others, it is not currently possible to create an uncrackable game. But, two weeks sounds like it might be do-able. If that is the difference between profit and loss (or at least seen as such by the publishers), that's an awful big incentive to pack the game with a monster DRM system.

I dunno. As much as I hate to say it, I don't think that invasive DRMs are going anywhere anytime real soon.

Looks like the consumers (us) have a choice to make. Buy it and put up with the draconian DRM or simply don't get the game.

Then I won't get it until they remove the DRM. I'm in no rush anyways. If the game won't sell, they might reconsider it. If people who are against this sort of protection simply whine but still buy the game, they will put this in their next game aswel.

Gamespot posted an interview (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183311.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;2) with Martin Slater of 2K Australia (publishers of BioShock). They were thrilled that the game was not cracked for thirteen days, though they took a beating over their DRM (also SecuRom, IIRC). If that is a successful time frame to make money on a game, I can see in the incentive of the publishers.
what!? :D

the problem with that line of thought is that it completely ignores a well researched fact (one that almost the entire industry save for a few indie companies seem determined to ignore too): pirates don't buy games. period. average pirate joe blow illegally downloading a game doesn't equate to a lost sale, because if joe can't get the game for free, he simply won't bother getting it at all.

all "anti-piracy" measures do is cost publishers a fortune, annoy legitimate customers, and provide a minor nuisance/challenge to a cracker. want proof? check out any bit-torrent site armed with a list of every new release (be it a game or any other form of mainstream software) of the past month. every single one of them will be there. every. single. one. patches? they'll be there too. cracked and ready to install.

like the music industry before it, the software industry is trying to tackle the issue of piracy in completely the wrong way. and because of that, it's a battle they can never win.

what was it leia said in ANH? "the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers." all "protective measures" like this are doing are turning more and more people toward piracy.

Of course there are those that aren't willing to accept any restrictions at any level and I understand that. I just hope those individuals consider the fact that piracy is a huge problem for PC gaming and developers/publishers are trying to find ways to prevent illegitimate use of their games and only allow their paying customers to enjoy their work.
they really, really aren't. for the reasons i stated above, the absolutely minute number of extra sales picked up by preventing piracy is totally insignificant. whether the people who protest about the piracy measures know it or not, this is ENTIRELY about a revenue stream publishers discovered with the advent of MMORPG's - and the distribution of software has been slowly heading toward a certain business model ever since.

think about how DRM's are handled with most video (and music?) you purchase online. you pay a fee, you have access to said video file for X amount of time. the time expires, if you want further access to that video, you pay another fee.

welcome to the future of gaming.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, Scatter. Like it or not, Mass Effect for PC has DRM in the form of a one-time online activation after the game is installed and a limit of 3 activations per game. If you are stating that EA and BioWare are migrating single player games towards an online business model similar to MMORPG's then that is an interesting theory. I certainly disagree with your assessment that the DRM implemented in MEPC isn't an attempt to prevent piracy however.

I don't get it, what's the big deal? They already removed the 10 day revalidation. All that is left is the 3 times install limit. Which only applies if you upgrade or build a new system. You can install it a million times on your current rig if you never upgrade it!But what if you do want to upgrade in a piecemeal fashion?

I guess we can only hope that the process of getting another installation token isn't as bad as it sounds.

I just hope those individuals consider the fact that piracy is a huge problem for PC gaming and developers/publishers are trying to find ways to prevent illegitimate use of their games and only allow their paying customers to enjoy their work.

But their ways seem to be a hindrance for legitimate customers and a challenge for crackers. Those who get pirated copies of a game can enjoy it without a protection that interferes with everything.

what!? :D

the problem with that line of thought is that it completely ignores a well researched fact (one that almost the entire industry save for a few indie companies seem determined to ignore too): pirates don't buy games. period. average pirate joe blow illegally downloading a game doesn't equate to a lost sale, because if joe can't get the game for free, he simply won't bother getting it at all.
Not entirely true. I agree that the vast majority of pirates do not and will not buy the game. But it seems that there are enough, for lack of a better word, "casual" pirates that will shell out the money if they cannot get the game for free. An interesting article on Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350) by the director of marketing of Reflexive shows some of the numbers. To paraphrase, they estimated that for every 1000 pirates thwarted, they made 1 extra sale. So far, your point seems to be ahead. But here's the clincher, that 1:1000 ratio increased their sales by over 70%. That, my friend, is nothing to sneeze at, and that is why I say DRM is going to be with us until there are no more offline games.


all "anti-piracy" measures do is cost publishers a fortune

Say what you want about some of the publishers, I'm reasonably certain that they can do math. Do you believe that they would waste that money, time, and effort if they didn't think it would pay off?

...annoy legitimate customers
There, we are (mostly) in agreement. I've already stated that I'm not planning on picking up MEPC for that reason.

...for the reasons i stated above, the absolutely minute number of extra sales picked up by preventing piracy is totally insignificant.
Apparently not. See my point above.

this is ENTIRELY about a revenue stream publishers discovered with the advent of MMORPG's - and the distribution of software has been slowly heading toward a certain business model ever since.

...welcome to the future of gaming.
Agreed. Last I checked, business still kept score in money.

Now, for the record, I'm going to say that I cannot justify game piracy on any ethical or moral grounds. (And yes, in the interest of full disclosure, I have made copies of games in the past.) However, from a practical standpoint, I will also stipulate that it's near impossible to eliminate it. Again though, from a practical standpoint, the publishers have every right to do what they can to maximize their profits. Whether you agree with me or not, well, that's what these forums are for.

The question then is: what is "reasonable?" For my way of thinking, I'm going to refer to that Gamasutra article again for a bit. One thing that jumped out was that the first--minimal--fixes that the publishers put on the game (fixing existing exploits and known keygens) increased sales by 70%. Further fixes and increased DRM resulted only in minor decreases or increases in sales.


In short :halo2:
Do I believe that game publishers have the right to put DRM protection on their games? Yes.

Even ridiculously over-bearing and counter-productive ones? Yes.

Do I believe that consumers have the right to donwload cracked copies that they didn't pay for on the basis of draconian DRM? No.

Do I believe that consumers have the right not to buy (or play) the game on the basis of draconian DRM? You bet.

I don't know where the line is and I suspect that it lies with each consumer, but my 2 cents worth says that a three-activation limit is over the line.

uh PJ, the 1:1000 numbers back my point up entirely.

the 70% line though... that's just hilarious. do the math mate, it simply doesn't add up: to meet the 70% increase at the accepted 1:1000 ratio, a game would have to prevent 700,000 pirates for every 1,000 legitimate sales. given that the average game shifts around a half million units (we're talking average here, for your blockbuster titles like gta iv you can multiply these numbers by a factor of 8 or greater), that would equate to preventing three hundred and fifty million instances of piracy from a pool of three hundred and fifty billion instances. :D

1:1000 is probably a close guess as to the number of sales lost due to piracy, but there is no way that number leads to a sales increase of 70%. none whatsoever.

But their ways seem to be a hindrance for legitimate customers and a challenge for crackers. Those who get pirated copies of a game can enjoy it without a protection that interferes with everything.
True, however I don't recall saying that the anti-piracy measures implemented in Mass Effect for PC were an ideal solution for the piracy problem, or even an effective solution at that. I'm just saying that publishers are going to continue their anti-piracy efforts until they find a solution that greatly reduces the piracy problem. Of course if few PC players who are willing to pay for their PC games find the publishers' anti-piracy solutions to be acceptable then it seems likely that PC games as we know them now will cease to exist. It's a real problem and there isn't an easily identifiable solution as far as I can tell.

Phantom, if what you say is true, then the protection on mepc is not making them any extra money.

I guess we can only hope that the process of getting another installation token isn't as bad as it sounds.

You Sir have never had to call EA:D

uh PJ, the 1:1000 numbers back my point up entirely.
As I said, sir in my post...

the 70% line though... that's just hilarious. do the math mate, it simply doesn't add up: to meet the 70% increase at the accepted 1:1000 ratio, a game would have to prevent 700,000 pirates for every 1,000 legitimate sales.

And your point? Again, I'm reasonably certain these guys can add.

given that the average game shifts around a half million units

Citation, please?

but there is no way that number leads to a sales increase of 70%. none whatsoever.
Did you read the article, sir?

Again, do you really believe these guys are going to waste the time and money for something that is useless?

Again, do you really believe these guys are going to waste the time and money for something that is useless?

It does depend on how savy a computer user is. Personaly I pay for my games, as my most prefered format for playing games is PC. However all the copyright protection, doesn't stop piracy, and infact, just makes life difficult for those of us who do legally own games. e.g. the CD check is a completely pointless feature, since I know the cracked versions don't have it.

I do however hope a satisfactory method of security can be found, that significantly hits piracy, but DOESNT, effect gaming overly for me. I cannot comment on how succesful the anti piracy software with ME is.

Review roundup, guys. (http://www.starwarsknights.com/fullstory.php?id=487)

The most common score seems to be somewhere around 9/10.

Man, I still have to wait a week for it to hit the shelves in Europe! :(

People seem to be doing a good job here about being careful with the subject of illegal downloads. However, since we're talking about the problem of illegal downloads I thought I'd remind everyone that talking about how to crack the game or specifics on how to obtain it in any other way but buying it legally is not allowed here. Thanks.