Topic: The Gamer's Bill of Rights

[idolminds]

From Stardock

    The Gamer's Bill of Rights
    We the Gamers of the world, in order to ensure a more enjoyable experience, establish equality between players and publishers, and promote the general welfare of our industry hereby call for the following:

       1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.
       2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
       3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
       4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
       5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.
       6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
       7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
       8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
       9. Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
      10. Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

I'll post my thoughts on them in a bit.

[MysterD]

Stardock has just set the model that every other game publisher and developer should actually follow.
I don't think I need to say much more than that.

EDIT:
I'm gonna be very curious to hear Idol's thoughts on this matter.

[Quemaqua]

A few of them seem a bit much, but for the most part I agree completely, and even when piracy protection methods need to be used for legal reasons, I still think that having this *attitude* is what's important.  Lean in this direction, and naturally everything you do will be more about the customer and more about giving him the experience he deserves.  Which yes, trust me, will get you repeat business and a reliable base of people who regularly buy your products.

[sirean_syan]

Most of those feel like common sense that would be an extension of the old common courtesy that consumers used to expect with their purchasing. They're good things and I'm happy to see someone standing up for them again, but I'm sad someone has to come out and explicitly state them. Still, this can't hurt my image of Stardock. What would be really nice is if this makes some of the big boys sit up and listen. I don't think Stardock produces the numbers for them to care yet, but they're getting gamers on their side.

Getting more specific, the points that I have issue with are the first and third. I don't think it's fully the responsibility of the publisher to make sure the game runs on your computer. You have to pay attention to things and it's not the publisher's fault that people are just stupid or lack the knowledge about these things. In terms of having to expect meaningful updates, that's a bit much. It's cool when we get them, but no one should expect their game to magically grow after a few months. You're going in for the full game initially. Anything else is a bonus.

[Quemaqua]

However, that could also refer to expansions and stuff, where they package a bunch of useless shit in and sell it 30 times with different labels.  Those are pretty meaningless updates.  I'm guessing that isn't what they're referring to, but still.

But yeah, I agree with you, those are the weak ones that I think are a little much.  And too, I don't know that we can reasonably expect any big companies to not try and protect their products.  It never occurred to me before GWJ mentioned it, but any publicly traded company needs to protect its assets if they don't want to be sued by the shareholders.  Stardock doesn't have that problem because they're a smaller company, so that idealism comes easy to them.  I don't know what the solution is, and I'm certainly not saying that it's intrusive copy protection, but omitting stuff altogether probably isn't going to work either.

Still, I think they're just about spot on.  All of those points are valid concerns, and if anyone out there gave a shit about their customers, they'd sit up and pay attention.

[Cobra951]

       1. Highly desirable
       2. Highly desirable
       3. Optional / desirable
       4. Essential / absence is a deal breaker
       5. Highly desirable
       6. Highly desirable
       7. Essential, for games distributed online
       8. Highly desirable
       9. Essential / absence is a deal breaker
      10. Optional / desirable

[MysterD]

I think #7 is a good one, Cobra.

Most people who own original version of TLJ which was a 4 Disc Set can't get it to run on modern OS's; it don't work on XP.

So, therefore gamer Joe who wants to play TLJ on XP is forced to go out and buy the newer version, which was released to Win XP -- w/ the sound files completely changed the audio files to another format just to get this to run on XP.

The newest version of TLJ, which adds Vista support, is only also supported to those who have the re-released XP Version of TLJ, too. As a gamer who owns the original 4-disc set, don't I deserve the support? Even if it's a huge-ass download?

[MysterD]

This is from Brad Wardell's blog

We gamers understand most of this, but he goes into explaining what he means by some of these rights anyways for all of us.

No. 3: "Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state." Users want support for a game after it's released. Believe it or not, they don't want buggy software that gets maybe one patch after launch. Gamers want a reasonable amount of support post-launch.

Amen. I think games like Dungeon Lords (Regular Ed especially and also the re-released Collector's Ed), Gothic 3 and Alone in the Dark 2008 definitely fall into this category, as these games STILL would benefit from support, since they're so broken even after their most recent patches.

I did order AITD 2008 recently, so I'll let y'all know what I think of it, once it arrives likely in a few days or so.

No. 6: "Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer." Face it: system requirements are not always honest. One of the things that has always frustrated gamers is when they see a great clip of a game on GameTrailers, they get a game, expecting it to run decently, and they later find out that their system had no chance of ever reasonably running the game at those minimum specs. Sure, a $5,000 PC will run a game better than a $1,000 setup, but users will many times have to turn off so many graphical features that it looks nothing like what they saw in the trailer.

I think also, we need a standard of put on the box w/ the requirements, what settings the game will run on -- like for meeting the bare minimum, you'll be running the game on 1024x768 with overall settings on Low with an average of 30 FPS. I think Idol suggested this on the boards, a bit ago in some other discussions.

No. 8: "Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers." Obnoxious copy protection methods punish honest, paying gamers.

Right. They never punish the pirates b/c the pirates don't have to deal w/ copy protection; they get around it with cracks.

[MysterD]

Microsoft and Take-Two are very interested in this Gamer's Bill of Rights.

"The Gamer's Bill of Rights" was just introduced last week, but list co-creator Stardock tells Edge that big game companies like Microsoft and Take-Two have already shown interest in the 10-item roster, which aims to quell problems in the PC market.

"I’ve gotten a lot of good feedback from publishers though nothing too official yet," said Stardock CEO Brad Wardell, whose company recently published Sins of a Solar Empire for PC.

"Both Microsoft and Take-Two were interested in it and I’ve gotten calls from a few other publishers who are interested in putting something more formal together, as long as the items are clarified more specifically."

Among the items on the "Bill of Rights" are "Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state" and "Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers."

The list was a joint effort with Gas Powered Games head Chris Taylor, creator of Supreme Commander and the upcoming Demigod for PC.

While some game makers were openly interested in the bill, Edge contacted numerous high-profile PC game developers who were standoffish about commenting on the list of "rights."

A rep for one major developer said, "I think I/we will stay out of this," while another claimed not to have seen the list at all.

The Gamer's Bill of Rights has been an overwhelming hit with gamers across the Web, as the implementation of the items would give PC gaming a console-like accessibility.

But it can be a potentially controversial matter for developers, as the list makes rules related to copy protection and other big PC market issues.

Wardell gave his own theory as to why some companies are hesitant to talk about the suggestions. "Some were leery because some of the items were too vague (how do you define whether a game is 'done'; what does it mean to treat a customer like a ‘criminal’?). They could see themselves participating if we updated it to be more specific."

He continued, "A couple of others felt that the document limited their ability to protect their intellectual property in ways that may evolve in the future.

"The example one larger developer gave me is what if Microsoft develops a standardized library for handling IP protection, but it only works on Windows 7, and hence would need to be installed as part of the game’s installation a la DirectX on Windows Vista or XP? They wouldn’t want to be tied to not being able to do that."

Asked about his take on Stardock and Gas Powered Games' proposition, Microsoft Games for Windows global director Kevin Unangst (not wanting to take away too much from his company's own efforts in PC gaming) responded: "Microsoft certainly agrees with the importance of improving the quality and consistency of PC games. For two years now, Microsoft's Games for Windows program has worked to make great Windows games even better, and this is why Stardock and many other publishers are participating in the program."

Wardell had previously said he would be perfectly happy if Microsoft adopted the items on The Gamer’s Bill of Rights into its Games for Windows criteria.

[scottws]

It's interesting that some publishers are interesting in possibly adopting it or making it more formal, but it almost sounds like it's going to turn out to look like a EULA or something in the end.

That example Microsoft gave about the IP protection library is stupid.  They could make it obvious someplace that this will be installed (hence it won't be hidden).  And it's clear this is more about rootkit-like stuff, ad crap like in BF2142, or stuff that kills your other software like Alcohol or Daemon Tools.

[idolminds]

Another interview with Brad Wardell. Its pretty interesting.

I love this part.

Shack: So you take the stance that the majority of pirates would never have purchased the game in the first place?

Brad Wardell: Well, I don't know about "majority"--yeah, I would say probably, it depends on the title.

A lot of people will go and say, "Oh, what about Crysis," as if there was some universe where Crysis was going to sell four million copies on the PC if it only weren't for piracy. And it's like, oh come on. If you're making a game for a demographic that's mostly 15-18 year olds, who probably don't have jobs, but it requires a $4,000 computer to play, where are these kids getting the machines?

Crysis and other games like that need a high-end PC to get anything out of them. Look at the Tom's Hardware benchmarks on even the latest cards. "Oh look, I'm getting nine frames a second with the new GeForce, the 9800 GT or whatever." And then they come out, and they're like, "We've sold fewer copies than we had hoped. Look at all the copies on Bit Torrent." Well, those people weren't going to buy it. How were they going to buy it? With what money?

[Cobra951]

That's excellent.  I should go read the rest.

[MysterD]

Brad Wardell: Well I think [we need] a combination. You have to be able to protect your intellectual property. And I'm a big believer in activation. Our games, not all of our games, but Galactic Civilizations uses activation for downloads. Basically, our system has always traditionally been that you purchase a game, it has no copy protection, but if you want to update it you have to get it from us with your serial number, and we validate who it is.

But if you're not connected to the internet, if you're in the service and you're overseas, and I just want to play the freaking game single-player, I should be able to just play it and not have to worry about it. But if you want to get updates, obviously if you have interent access, all bets are off, it's fine.

As an example, if someone can update their game, they clearly have internet access, and at that point it's perfectly valid to make sure they're a customer. But if it's a single-player game, and if it doesn't have updates to it, there's gotta be a way so that people who aren't connected to the internet aren't going to be jerked around. Because they don't have to go through that with the console.

Amen, Brad.

[idolminds]

Interview Part 2

Only bummer about Demigod is this:

Shack: Just to make sure--you won't be supporting modding online, correct?

Brad Wardell: Yeah, we're not going to allow--because the game's so competitive online, you're not going to be able to use your mods in a multiplayer game. Which is kind of obvious in a way. If I create myself a mod that's going to make my guy better, that's probably not something you want to encourage.

But in the single-player game, we're not going to stop people from doing whatever. But the game's not going to include a map editor, because the maps in Demigod are arenas, and they're literally designed in 3D Studio. There's no map editor per se.

No multiplayer modding is a bummer, because I can't really see this being a game played much in singleplayer. Though I take from his "no map editor per se" that there won't be some stand alone map maker, but if you have 3D Studio or a package that outputs the right format you can probably make maps. Its just not going to be a simple thing.

I can't wait to see their fantasy Civ-like game.

[idolminds]

Just a little update. In the interview he mentioned a Civ4 mod that inspired their fantasy game. Well, this is the mod.

[MysterD]

No surprise here - since their GOG is DRM-free and that they want to rid The Witcher of DRM.

CD Projekt fully supports The Gamer's Bill of Rights.

Here's Tom Ohle of CD Projekt on his take on The Gamer's Bill of Rights.

As someone who’s a gamer that happens to work at a publisher/developer of games, I thought I’d weigh in on “The Gamer’s Bill of Rights.” Is it reasonable? Are the “rights” adequate? Would this even make a difference in the PC gaming market?

Well, let’s examine this…

For the most part, it’s a reasonable set of expectations, though I’m not sure how likely it is that it’ll gain widespread industry acceptance. As Stardock CEO Brad Wardell said himself, a lot of bigger publishers might just go, “What’s a Stardock?” though I hope I’m wrong; we all know that non-WoW PC gaming is on the decline and we need to band together as an industry to create any sort of large-scale change.
 
Developers themselves are likely all going to be in favor of the initiative – I don’t know a lot of devs who don’t consider themselves to be gamers, and any gamer will, of course, want these guidelines to be followed in all cases. But when it comes to the business side of things, it’s currently really difficult to make a case for publishers to seriously commit to PC gaming, and especially to PC gaming without copy protection.
 
As for the individual rights themselves, I think that in an ideal world, all of the rights are great. They also happen to conveniently fit with Stardock’s business model, though some of them don’t necessarily apply in all cases. Stardock has the benefit of being its own publisher, so the idea of giving a refund for games that don’t work on a player’s system (as the Bill suggests) is fine; most developers would need a publisher’s buy-in for this, and more importantly, retailer buy-in. In a world where anyone can return a game if it doesn’t work – and where copy protection isn’t implemented – piracy becomes much easier.
 
There are some things that I’d change with the Bill. I would actually re-word the rule that “Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release” to something more along the lines of, “If it suits the game design and business model, they should expect meaningful updates.” If, in fact, companies are sticking to the rule of releasing a game in its finished state, then by all accounts companies shouldn’t have to release any updates at all.
 
If there was any additional “right” that must be added, it should be an 11th rule that gamers have to abide by. And that is, “If most of these criteria are met by the developer and publisher, then the gamer shall not obtain illegal copies of games.” Yes, difficult to enforce and a bit utopian, but that’s really the root of this issue. Many of the rules Stardock and the list’s co-creator Gas Powered Games have outlined are excuses used by pirates to explain their actions; with those addressed, piracy should theoretically be nil. Except for… you know… thieves and whatnot.

If the Bill were to be adopted by game companies, it might impact the market, but the issues addressed are just part of the problem with PC gaming. I know that there are a number of initiatives in the works that are intended to make PC gaming easier, but we still have the issue of hardware costs, a huge variety of graphics cards and processors, tons of different configurations, etc. that just make it all too complicated for the casual gamer. We should have a much larger base of PC gamers than console players, given the number of PCs out there, but most people just can’t be bothered to screw around with hardware to get the best gaming experience. Speaking from my own experience, I used to have no problem tinkering around in autoexec.bat and config.sys files to make a game work, but I just don’t have the patience to figure out why a game won’t work nowadays. I spent over $700 on a new video card and processor last year and my gaming PC is already starting to show its age. It’s just getting too difficult to get the best experience out of PC games, and that, to me, is the main issue that needs to be addressed.

My company, CD Projekt, will support the Bill. We actually support most of these things already; we’re very much committed to giving gamers the best possible service and experience. We were quite happy with the release of The Witcher originally, but due to fan (and media) feedback, we’ve spent almost a year fixing any issues, implementing “meaningful updates” and more in The Witcher: Enhanced Edition. We still didn’t think that was enough, so we added in a bunch of other stuff (soundtracks, a game guide, etc.) and were happy to see that our publishers were also supportive of the idea. And still we thought that gamers might be a bit ticked off, so we’re giving it all out for free to people who already bought the game. The problems we had at release – The Witcher was CD Projekt RED’s first title, I should remind you – taught us a lesson and our future titles will be as good as we can possibly make them. But as with Stardock, we have the luxury of also being a publisher and thus having another source of income, and not every developer is in that position. It’s up to publishers to give their developers time to make the projects as good as they can be.
 
As a further example of how we’re already supporting these things, I’ll mention another project of ours, GOG.com (“Good Old Games”). One of the key fundamentals of GOG.com is a gamer-friendly approach; that includes giving players very cheap and very good games without copy protection of any sort. They can download games as many times as they want and install them on as many PCs as they want. Not treating gamers like criminals, though, relies on gamers not being criminals! If the games get pirated anyway, then this whole argument goes out the window. That being said, it’s been awesome to see the response from media, players and even publishers – we’re very confident that gamers are honest people and are ready for this sort of approach to customer service.

[Pugnate]

A lot of people will go and say, "Oh, what about Crysis," as if there was some universe where Crysis was going to sell four million copies on the PC if it only weren't for piracy. And it's like, oh come on. If you're making a game for a demographic that's mostly 15-18 year olds, who probably don't have jobs, but it requires a $4,000 computer to play, where are these kids getting the machines?

Wow, Brad Wardell is such a troll. That $4000 Crysis PC comment is stupid, and is typical of his comments that seem designed to cater to the blood thirsty. I am seriously tired of uninformed PC gaming fanatics citing his no DRM formula as some sort of proof that DRM doesn't work.

Fact is that Sins of a Solar Empire sold 500,000 copies eight bloody months after release. While that's fine for a game from an independent studio, that's terrible.... for a game with a decent budget.

An excellent RTS franchise like Sierra's World in Conflict sold the same amount of copies in half the time period, yet was considered a failure. Its sequel was canned, because despite selling twice as well as Sins, its sales weren't considered good enough.

As for Crysis, the developers claim that for every copy sold, twenty were downloaded. Yes, they don't assume that had the game been ucrackable, it would have sold 20 million copies, but surely one or two out of every twenty pirates would have bought the game? That would have meant twice or thrice as many total sales.

No, that Sins formula just doesn't work for titles with decent budgets. And I can list ten games at this moment that outsold Sins easily during the past year, that HAD some form of DRM, yet were not considered a success.

I am sorry, but the only way games like Sins work is when the budgets for such titles are very low. And while I love my Sins, I also love my big budget titles.

As for DRM not working on pirates, I am sure that an effective measure works on at least 20% of them.. A game like Mass Effect wasn't truly cracked till a month after release, and even then it involved some sort of editor that needed to be executed periodically with the game minimized -- the DRM made planetary travel impossible for pirated copies.

I was following the affects of the Mass Effect DRM closely, and saw tons of pirates on The Pirate Bay and Minninova claim they bought the game after spending many frustrating hours trying to crack the title.

With the torrents making piracy so easy and convenient, I am afraid some form of DRM is necessary. Though definitely not to the extremeness that EA has started resorting to. Extreme DRM only works when it isn't easily crackable, otherwise you get the same situation as Spore where legit customers are jumping through hoops, while pirates are having a far easier time of it.

From what I understand Mass Effect PC has still not been properly cracked.

[gpw11]

Most people who own original version of TLJ which was a 4 Disc Set can't get it to run on modern OS's; it don't work on XP.

I'm 100% positive the version I played on XP was the 4 CD version.  I know I didn't have any problems but can't remember if I used a patch or not.

Anyways, I agree to a certain point, but at the same time agree with Pug in that this guy seems to be patting himself on the back a bit too hard. The $4000 PC comment is stupid, and it's also completely retarded to play down the fact that piracy hurts sales.  Sure, developers and publishers inflate the numbers quite a bit, but lost sales on a game like crysis probably aren't negligible.

[Pugnate]

I most definitely played TLJ on XP. I don't even remember installing a patch.

Anyway I am going to go ahead and say that hardcore PC gaming is probably dying as we know it. I think the success of this year’s holiday lineup could be “make or break” for PC gaming. In my opinion, this season is hardcore PC gaming’s last stand, and further poor retail sales could see the final exodus towards console gaming.

I mean if you take some of the big shooter titles like Far Cry 2, Crysis Warhead or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Skies, you will note that they were in development for a long time, probably before the recent shift away from PC gaming.

From what I read, Warhead was in development immediately after Crysis as was Clear Skies after its predecessor. Interestingly, developers of both titles spoke of wanting to go multiplatform after their personal disappointments with their previous PC efforts. I can only assume they were unable to, because of time constraints. As Cevat stated, the success of Warhead could shape the future of his company’s involvement with PC gaming.

Even Far Cry 2 started as a PC exclusive until delayed and turned into a multiplatform title.

And while games like Spore, The Sims, Dawn of War, StarCraft, Blizzard MMOs, Diablo will always be big on the PC gaming scene, those titles are too few and far in between to sustain hardcore PC gaming. They just don’t push the hardware like a new Unreal, Crysis, or Far Cry. Recently, Epic announced that they had no intention of bring Gears of War 2 to PC.

Unknown gems like World in Conflict are finding it much harder to break through than in the past. Why, just recently the WiC expansion was sadly canned.

It is unfortunate that the torrent technology has made it so bloody easy to distribute pirated PC games. I feel that that is what is hurting PC gaming the most, and it is why so many PC titles come with a mandatory half-assed multiplayer, as it acts as a good verification tool.

Yes, there has been movement towards online sales, but that piece of the pie isn’t nearly as big as the PC gaming hopefuls make it out to be. While Valve won’t release STEAM numbers, in a GFW podcast, the lead developer of Company of Heroes spoke of STEAM being as good for sales as a Best Buy, and not anything close to retail, while in a recent article, Valve talked about expecting STEAM to match retail sales after a few years… yes a few years.

[Cobra951]

You're talking volume now, right?  Original big sales numbers, now dwindling.  Without the big numbers, commercial games will fail financially.  They cost too much to produce.

A few facts, sad to some, happy to others:  (1) Bittorrent takes distribution control away from a privileged few.  A lot of common users can come together and effectively replace a big server.  You can't put this genie back in the bottle without killing the free internet as we know it today. 

(2) Game companies are treating their PC customers as criminals.  Playing a PC game legitimately is like trying to leave a bar and drive home at 2 AM.  The hassles outweigh the benefits in some cases, and are unpleasant in many of them. 

(3) PC gaming hardware is a fast-moving target.  For as long as I've known PC gaming, the focus of commercial developers has been on pushing the hardware to the breaking point, to produce something prettier than whatever came out just before.  You can't just buy the latest game.  You also need to find what hardware is required to run it right, figure out where to get it and how to install it, and then pay for it, in time and money (even if it's much lower than $4000). 

(4) Consoles have exploded on the gaming scene.  The technology of the current leaders matches that of 2006 gaming PCs, minus mouse and keyboard, which hurts some game genres (most notably FPSs, though this is addressable with better input devices in the future).  Gamers' needs are covered, including online connectivity and updates.

If add all that up, it comes up as a big hill to climb for the people who were once on top.  I understand the problems and the reactions to them by developers and more so by distributors.  Understanding them doesn't mean they're going anywhere.  Mistreating your customer base is bad business regardless of reason.  If they find an alternative, they will take it, be it piracy or the PS3 version.  Setup time, effort and cost for PC gaming were already a greater challenge than the console crowd faces.  Add to that malcontent game houses and consoles being perceived as closer substitutes than before, and you're asking for a dead PC market.

[scottws]

(3) PC gaming hardware is a fast-moving target.  For as long as I've known PC gaming, the focus of commercial developers has been on pushing the hardware to the breaking point, to produce something prettier than whatever came out just before.  You can't just buy the latest game.  You also need to find what hardware is required to run it right, figure out where to get it and how to install it, and then pay for it, in time and money (even if it's much lower than $4000). 

This is way overblown.  If you built the right PC, i.e. not a mid- to low-end one, you don't have to worry about this for years.  And when it does start to become a problem, honestly I don't even find it worth bothering thinking if your PC will be able to run it or not.  You struggle with a game or two and that's it.  You throw in the towel on that rig in its current state.

If you are constantly worried about every title and find yourself upgrading your PC part-by-part, game-by-game, then you're just causing yourself undue stress.  Just accept that your PC probably won't do well with any game at this point and either upgrade your PC significantly, get a new one, buy the game on console, or forgo the game entirely.

[Pugnate]

http://kotaku.com/5048236/crysis+branded-pc-full-specs-comes-bundled-with-xp-pro

[MysterD]

Only thing I'd need to upgrade is my motherboard and CPU, so I have a double-core processor -- namely so I could meet ACPC's minimum requirements.

Skip it. I ain't upgrading right now for one game -- since I can pretty much run most new games very well with my current PC.

Maybe sometime down the road, I'll get a new PC.

[Cobra951]

http://kotaku.com/5048236/crysis+branded-pc-full-specs-comes-bundled-with-xp-pro

The right side of that image says it all.   

[gpw11]

ahaha

[Pugnate]

I don't get it. You mean the "Think Again"?

Also, while it is nice of EA to still be supporting the PC with big titles, their DRM is getting insane.

Red Alert 3

* You must have an Internet connection to install RA3.
* You must have an Internet connection to play RA3 for the first time, but for the first time only (unless you want to play online, obviously).
* You may install RA3 up to five times before the automatic activation will fail and a customer support call will be required to install the game.
* Uninstalling RA3 will NOT restore the activation count. (See Chris Corry’s update post)
* Once installed, RA3 will not require the disc to play.

So how many of you wanted to play Sacred 2? Here is its recently announced DRM rule:

    * 1 box, 2 licenses
    * 1 license can be used online at a time; implying you use either your PC or your notebook, but not both at the same time.
    * 2 can be played via LAN
    * 2 can be used for SP
    * Unlimited installations, 2 activations parallel. Activations can be revoked through multiple channels (online-auto, online tools, offline). Revoke & re-activate can be done an unlimited number of times.
    * One PC component can be replaced without problems. Beyond that revoke & re-activate is the recommended procedure.
    * There will be an emergency hotline for DRM issues due to failed hardware, etc. The manual page with the key serves as proof of purchase.
    * The hotline will be available 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. For standard phone rates. (This may apply for Germany only.; ed.)
    * Internet connection is needed during installation. The FAQ explains you can use a friend's PC for manual activation though.
    * You can play without the DVD. It´s not needed in the drive.
    * No private data will be transfered during the activation process. You cannot even enter critical data.
    * The activation servers will be available for the next couple of years. Should this no longer be the case, the DRM will be patched out.
    * "A transfer to a third [party] is not part of the license." (transl.)
      edit: It's not clear if this is just the standard phrase to prevent copying or if it's really meant to make sure the game cannot be sold. A sentence in the explanations on the activation server page (see below) hints that selling is possible.


Well at least they allow one copy to be used for a two player LAN.

Still, the funny thing is that it is coming to the 360 as well... and obviously without the hassle.

I guess this is in response to what happened to Iron Lore for Titan Quest, which was a very similar title.

[Cobra951]

Get it now? 

[MysterD]

I posted about Sacred 2's DRM in the Sacred 2 thread -- but, I don't think anybody plans to play the damn thing. Nobody on the boards seems to be interested in it. Probably even more so now, with then nasty DRM it has -- at least in the German version.

I have a funny feeling the USA version will be the same, when it comes to DRM.

I happen to like Sacred: Plus + Sacred: Underworld. It's a good hack-n-slash RPG. Sure, it ain't the best -- but there's a lot of action and a lot of side quests to do.

At least Sacred: Underworld, for the LAST patch, they removed its protection officially.

[Pugnate]

Now that I've thought about it, Sacred 2's DRM isn't that unreasonable. It is actually far better than Hellgate's, which didn't allow a single cdkey to be used in LAN even.

[MysterD]

Now that I've thought about it, Sacred 2's DRM isn't that unreasonable. It is actually far better than Hellgate's, which didn't allow a single cdkey to be used in LAN even.

It still has to be activated, though -- which is annoying.

But, at least it allows for revokes. I can deal with that -- unlike say what Mass Effect PC and Spore have going on.

I'll wait on Sacred 2, until it gets cheaper.

I need to finish Sacred: Underworld, anyways.

About Hellgate, it's MP was a MMO. So, when that goes down, you're stuck w/ the SP.
But, you only need the disc in the drive to run the SP for Hellgate.

[Pugnate]

I don't mind a single activation as long as it forgoes future cdkey checks and comes with a revoke option.

[MysterD]

I don't mind a single activation as long as it forgoes future cdkey checks and comes with a revoke option.

It is annoying, but I can tolerate that.

[Xessive]

I agree with Pug. It doesn't rape the legal consumer, rather it allows you to play without a disc in the drive and it allows you to install/uninstall as you please. I'd say this is a fair moderate between no DRM at all and EA's draconian (word of the month) DRM.

It's basically like the regular CD key checks but without the phone home every single time.

[Quemaqua]

I am fully, 100% against any form of activation whatsoever.  If my PC ever has to phone some company and I'm not playing an online-only game, then they can kiss my fucking ass and I'm downloading a crack.  Period, end of story.

[MysterD]

I am fully, 100% against any form of activation whatsoever.

Of course, there should be NO activation for a SP-portion of a game.
I always thought the disc should protect the SP-side of a game, if there is going to be protection.
I'd rather it be DRM-free, though.

For MP, it's more logical to have such an activation b/c -- duh, you have to go online to play.
Especially a MMO.

Though, it's nice when a MP-game has an option to play it on a LAN, too.

If my PC ever has to phone some company and I'm not playing an online-only game, then they can kiss my fucking ass and I'm downloading a crack.  Period, end of story.

If there is some protection that requires a phone home, when the game is done making its share of  sales, then they should completely remove the DRM via a patch. End of story.

I'd rather them go the Stardock and GOG type of DRM-free route myself. I'm more likely to buy a game upon release by the game dev's and publisher going that route.

[Pugnate]

Yea but D, wouldn't you rather it activate your game once for the sake of it permanently forgoing a cdkey check? I find that more reasonable than having to insert my CD every time I want to play, or having to be constantly online like I do for STEAM.

Obviously I'd use a crack at first opportunity, but as far as DRMs go, I find a single activation far more reasonable than constantly having to insert my CD. Besides, who can't spare an internet connection for a few minutes of permanent activation?

Let's just hope that Sacred 2's publishers are better prepared than those of Bioshock.

[MysterD]

Yea but D, wouldn't you rather it activate your game once for the sake of it permanently forgoing a cdkey check? I find that more reasonable than having to insert my CD every time I want to play, or having to be constantly online like I do for STEAM.

If it's the MP portion of a game, I should NEVER have to put the disc in the drive to play. That's what my online game account is for -- that's their game check b/c I actually need the Net to play, obviously. Works fine for HGL and Guild Wars -- absolutely painless.

I'm sure console gamers stick their CD/DVD in the drive, every time they want to play just a SP-game. They don't have to deal w/ the Net, for SP-only games. Why should we PC gamers do the same?

Yes, it's very nice to not have to put the disc in the drive, after installing a game -- especially a SP game. I believe after a game's had its run of sales (and is no longer selling), the DRM should be removed anyways; period. Only reason DRM is put in a game is so the game sells as quick as it can, to try to stop  pirates trying to steal it (that actually have the $50 to buy a game). After a while, when the game hits a cheaper price and everybody goes and buys it, the DRM's useless. Just remove the check -- that's what Id does, these days.

The ideal situation for PC gaming is Stardock. I bought Sins of a Solar Empire at a retail store. Installed it from the DVD. Don't need the Net to do any SP stuff. Can just boot the game up in SP and play. If I want patches, want to deal with Impulse -- that's up to me to get myself online and register my game online with them; it's optional. Nothing's forced.

The problem with activation is -- well, see whatelse I have to say at the end of this discussion on AITD 2008, which is a SP-game I had to activate. Why should I have to activate a SP-game that doesn't even need to Internet for me to play? I'm not playing with any other gamers online. Why am I forced to deal with the Net for a game (to activate it) that just really only needs me and my PC to get involved? It's not like the game has any patches out for it online, either.

Obviously I'd use a crack at first opportunity, but as far as DRMs go, I find a single activation far more reasonable than constantly having to insert my CD. Besides, who can't spare an internet connection for a few minutes of permanent activation?

I'm sure people w/ laptops lacking a Net connection (and not wanting one for their laptop) might not like to deal with this -- especially for a SP-game.

Let's just hope that Sacred 2's publishers are better prepared than those of Bioshock.

Let's hope so...

B/c from what we've seen, games with Internet activation = expect numerous retries to get the game to boot; especially the day and week of release, when a game's brand new. Especially games that will sell like hotcakes, such as MEPC, Spore, Bioshock, and anything Valve themselves make.

I recently bought Alone In The Dark 2008 (which is SP-only) and I know nobody is buying this on the PC. Game is not selling well at all. There should be no web-traffic issue here. Yet, for some reason, I had trouble STILL trying to activate this thing on their servers. Bad timing, I guess? Shoddy protection maybe? Maybe a combo of both? Eventually, it just decided to connect, after numerous tries and re-tries -- of putting the code in correctly the first time and just clicking retry. Ummm...WTF?

I shouldn't have to deal with this kind of inconvenience. It's just not worth the hassle to have activation, if I have to deal with this kind of crap -- especially on SP-based games.
 

[Quemaqua]

I used to have a laptop that didn't have a steady internet connection, and I didn't often use it to go online since I had dialup at the time.  Now I have a wireless router and all, but there are still plenty of people who spend time away from the internet on devices capable of playing games.  Online activation is bullshit and should never be a requirement, ever.

[Xessive]

Que makes a valid argument and I'm kinda on the fence about online activation.

I use cracks regardless.

[Quemaqua]

Also, I'd just like to note that most games I've tried that required online activation as a one-shot still required me to have the CD in the drive.