Online Activation Is a Ripoff

[SirSchmoopy]

Starcraft two is being designed like an online game at this point. Being online is one of the major points of the game. This is like crying that World of Warcraft has "Online Activation".


If you don't have an internet connection then guess what? You also don't have a computer that can RUN STARCRAFT TWO. This game "Requires" an online connection for single player. You can go ahead and say "Har har thats stupid" but this is called moving forward in games. They want to track your stats, award you points, avatars and decals, they want you to be online so your friends can see you online and send you a message saying "Hey when you finish that level why don't we go play a 2v2?". Stop complaining before something has even been released. Wait till it gets released and then see if "Kids" are complaining because they are on there high end computers wanting to play star craft without an internet connection.

They want you online. That is the game experience they are making.

 

[Mosstromo]

I sombre and gravely agree with you Mr. Shamus.
And let me give a versed word on piracy, related to this delusion that copy protection, on-line or not, would help reduce or slow piracy down.

I live in one of the epicentres of piracy and fake goods on this Earth: Thailand. To put it in a very pious way, it is omnipotent and omnipresent.
Now, I'd like to be as clear as possible, so I am casting aside any and all traces of exaggeration or similar effects for embellishing the narrative that may affect the fact I am about to share here:
There is no game... no... game, absolutely NOT ONE single game, be that by Valve, Blizzard, Atari, EA, THQ, Bandai, Microsoft, id Studios, or any other grand company in the west or the east, ... at all... that has not been released pirate in this country. NONE.
Do they work?
All of them. There is not a single one of them that has not worked.
How can I pretend to give such an erudite asseveration?
The sellers install them and test them, so that the buyers do not have to go back and complain that their purchases did not work, etc., etc.
So, it brings us back to consider: Have these practices of registering on-line or copy-protected disks helped any of the goals mentioned above? Obviously not. If at all, it has encouraged people to buy pirated games, since they will be hassle-free and the users would be able to play them in the future (even if the company dies or stops honouring their services to the user).

As a brief example of potential alienation of legal buyers, I have my own personal experience.
Regardless of living where I do, I purchase original games. The reasons are varied but the bottom line is that they are very affordable. The extra effort of buying them is surmountable.
So, I purchased Half-Life 1. And I installed it.
Just to be told that in order to play I had to register with Steam.
But I had no internet connection at the time, nor intended to have one. I did all my internet related things in an internet cafe.
So after much fumbling I get the chance to take a portable machine to a shop and connect my game to the internet.
I discover then that I had purchased only 90 or 95% of the game. The rest had to be downloaded from Steam. Right there a truculent reality. I don't own all of my ancestral game from 1998, only almost all.
It also tells me I have to connect every time I wish to play. But I can't, so I refuse.
Some FAQ area informs me I can play disconnected if I just follow some guidelines.
I follow these instructions and its still no go.
I begin dialogue with the costumer and attention centre and what not.
I learn that there are X reasons to the N power that can be obstructing my way to playing MY game.
This goes on ad nauseam.
Four or five days later, I was still unable to see Mr. Freeman get to Black Mesa.
Finally, dejected and cheated, I gave up.

Imagine now, how I, a legal paying costumer, feel to see the piracy buyers get their copies of any of Valve's games, including the Orange Box, and play it within a few minutes. Perfectly fine.
Can you see the counter-productive effects in this sole example?

 

[bjj hero]

I'm gob smacked. I haven't been a PC gamer for nearly 10 years, the cost of keeping an up to date rig pushed me back towards consoles.

I still play shining force now and its about 17 years old. Good luck doing that with online activation.

 

[Break]

Funny you should mention this - I've just recently been troubled by online activation. I downloaded the new Mass Effect DLC pack a few days ago, and was getting back into the game again. Then, for some reason, XBL decided that the account I'd marked as my "parent's account" was invalid - without changing it, I could either sign in offline, or not at all. Fine, I thought, I'll fix it. I filled in the relevant information, gave it another account, only for it to say "This service cannot be accessed at this time" and got sent back to the main menu. Tried a different account, got the same response. I figured I'd let them fix whatever the problem was, and went on playing Mass Effect offline.

Except that I couldn't. My file was linked to the two DLC packs, and it wouldn't let me play it without connecting to the internet. Since my Xbox had E74'd, and it was on that first one that I'd bought Bring Down the Sky. Same goes for Fallout 3, Resident Evil 5, any game that had in some part been downloaded. The problem with Xbox Live has persisted for about three days, now, and in the meantime, I've been refused access to several of my games. Good work, Microsoft.

All of a sudden, I feel so much more inclined to buy the PS3 versions of games, when I can. Isn't that odd?

 

[DeathQuaker]

Good article. Hadn't realized they'd decided to go with online activation... seems awfully stupid, especially coming from Blizzard, who up to some point had always seemed to me (for what it's worth) fairly consumer friendly. And you'd think after Electronic Arts got sued five times between issues of online activation and other DRM issues (in their case, caused by SecuROM), and THEY decided to stop using that kind of copy protection after the whole ordeal, no one would be trying to pull similar BS.

I hadn't been excessively interested in Starcraft after they decided to split it three ways, but I had still thought about getting it if it ended up looking good. This puts the nail in the coffin.

I know one big issue with online activation--that can't be emphasized enough--is it really affects people who can't keep a connection up while they play, notably including soldiers stationed overseas with limited Internet access. IIRC, that's why they stopped making Mass Effect require an online connection.

 

[samsonguy920]

I like Steam, and you can play your single-player games on Steam without being connected to the net, in offline mode. I make a point to only buy games from Steam (if they have online DRM).

That's fine for single-player, but staying in offline, you dont get updates, and multiplayer might be problematic (havent tried getting on MP in a game with Steam in offline, will have to try that sometime soon).
It is a tiny bit reassuring that at least the companies are trying different kinds of DRM and not just sticking with one kind that screws everyone over. (Spore, anyone?) But it is like watching a bunch of monkeys trying to type out Shakespeare's plays. No matter what comes out, someone legit gets the shaft. It's probably a long hard road before something comes out that works for both customer and company. Gaming shouldn't be considered a privilege that can be taken away.

Yeah so? When you are able to get back online you'll get those updates. I don't see any problem with Steam.

I have little problem myself, except when they do a free weekend on a game, and not everyone can download it in a heartbeat in order to try it out before buying it. One example being Unreal Tournament 3, and the free weekend ended before the weekend was even over. A lot of people either didn't get to try it or got a very slim timeframe to. I have to wonder how many decided to buy it anyway after that and discovered it was shiite. And it is shiite. Steam isn't friendly on bandwidth, especially with its constant updates that run in the background. They should be fair and at least give the week before the free weekend to download the product, so anyone can seize the chance to demo a game.

 

[Royas]

Shamus, reading your article makes it sound like you're not completely up-to-date about how the new battlenet is running. I had lost my warcraft 3 cd's some time ago, but I still had the case + the CD key. The new battlenet download service is already available where you're able to tie keys to accounts, so I decided to do that. Lo and behold, I could download and install the game. So it isn't just DRM activation, there's a good level of service attached.

Obviously this does nothing to your valid argument of "what if blizzard goes broke" or "what if they change personality". I'd prefer to own my games and selling licenses for singleplayer games is invasive. If they do go under, I'll take a gamble with piracy and hope no malicious virus gets installed when I get around their activation.

I had the same problem, same game in fact. Except I did it the other way around. I lost the cases and kept the CD's. =(

In the end yes, online activation isn't the most fun thing in the world, however if it does prevent piracy at any degree you have to respect a companies rights to implement it. If you dislike the fact that you have to register online, don't buy the game. If enough people aren't buying the games due to the registration something will change. Game companies enjoy profits.

Actually, no, I don't have to respect the company's right to use online activation. I don't believe they should have that right. In some countries, I understand that they may not actually have that right, but they just haven't had anyone go after them for it. I don't care if it prevents piracy 100% (I'm of the belief DRM does almost nothing to prevent piracy, BTW), I still consider it dishonest and virulently anti-consumer. Yes, they may prevent a few particularly lazy pirates from getting their game, but they also manage to piss off people like me, who are happy to pay for their games.

The publishers know that their DRM is hated, too. You'll notice that they rarely mention the DRM explicitly on the cover, they just mention something about needing an online connection to play. They know that mentioning the DRM specifically will hurt sales. So they sneak it in. If you can't do something out in the open for fear of ticking off your customer base, you have no business doing on the sly.

 

[Destal]

Shamus, reading your article makes it sound like you're not completely up-to-date about how the new battlenet is running. I had lost my warcraft 3 cd's some time ago, but I still had the case + the CD key. The new battlenet download service is already available where you're able to tie keys to accounts, so I decided to do that. Lo and behold, I could download and install the game. So it isn't just DRM activation, there's a good level of service attached.

Obviously this does nothing to your valid argument of "what if blizzard goes broke" or "what if they change personality". I'd prefer to own my games and selling licenses for singleplayer games is invasive. If they do go under, I'll take a gamble with piracy and hope no malicious virus gets installed when I get around their activation.

I had the same problem, same game in fact. Except I did it the other way around. I lost the cases and kept the CD's. =(

In the end yes, online activation isn't the most fun thing in the world, however if it does prevent piracy at any degree you have to respect a companies rights to implement it. If you dislike the fact that you have to register online, don't buy the game. If enough people aren't buying the games due to the registration something will change. Game companies enjoy profits.

Actually, no, I don't have to respect the company's right to use online activation. I don't believe they should have that right. In some countries, I understand that they may not actually have that right, but they just haven't had anyone go after them for it. I don't care if it prevents piracy 100% (I'm of the belief DRM does almost nothing to prevent piracy, BTW), I still consider it dishonest and virulently anti-consumer. Yes, they may prevent a few particularly lazy pirates from getting their game, but they also manage to piss off people like me, who are happy to pay for their games.

The publishers know that their DRM is hated, too. You'll notice that they rarely mention the DRM explicitly on the cover, they just mention something about needing an online connection to play. They know that mentioning the DRM specifically will hurt sales. So they sneak it in. If you can't do something out in the open for fear of ticking off your customer base, you have no business doing on the sly.

Private companies have the right to do what they will with their products, regardless of whether or not you disagree with them. Your only real way of not respecting their right to do so is to refuse to buy their games. The only way things will change is if it starts to hit them where it counts...their profits.

 

[Phishfood]

Private companies have the right to do what they will with their products, regardless of whether or not you disagree with them. Your only real way of not respecting their right to do so is to refuse to buy their games. The only way things will change is if it starts to hit them where it counts...their profits.

Sadly, correct. However aren't they doing this BECAUSE they think its hurting their pockets to not do it? As I said earlier, all this DRM stops is me lending/copying the game to a friend. Once a real pro gets their hands on it its cracked and there for the whole net to see. At best it slows down the pirates.

I haven't seen any on here, but you know the sort I mean when I say "I've never pirated anything and you are all scum for even thinking about it" who can honestly say they have never taped a CD from a friend? or copied it etc. That is just as much piracy as grabbing the torrent. It seems to be that the big bone these days is that now its torrents they can SEE it being pirated when they couldn't tell I'd let my friend have a copy before.

 

[Knight Templar]

My biggest complaint with the article was that Shamus was complaining about the system without acknowledging the advantages or providing any sort of feasible alternative.

So to point out the flaws in a system you first must offer another system to replace it?

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[ntafiend]

First of all, great thread.
I have had my own steam issues. and DRM issues. and yeah, they really upset me. If i buy a game in the store i expect it to work whether or not i have internet access. I know and understand that cant be the case with online only games, but if the game has an offline component, then you shouldnt need online for it to work.
I used to feel that piracy shouldnt be tolerated and refused to NOT pay for my games. Then I started having problems with DRM and online activation. Seriously, how many times can a company tell people that its their computer with problems before they decide to just fix the game activation process already. Since then i have started paying for my games again. I like to support the developers and want them to continue making games for me.

While steam was one of the reasons i turned to the dark side, i honestly like some of the benefits of using it. Not needing discs is huge with me. I also like the deals and free weekend specials. Btw, with the UT3 freeweekend, you could predownload it.however the predownload didnt work until about 8 hours before the "weekend" was supposed to start. then when it was supposed to start, steam claimed it had been going on since before it really was. and then ended early. But they did the L4D free weekend right.

This part i guess youll have to take as my opinion, since i cant find the study to prove it, but it was told to me that a study proved that people that pirated music, purchased about 10% more music than people that didnt pirate any music. The reasons being: they had a chance to find out if they liked it or not before buying it, and they were exposed to a lot more music.Like i said though, i cant find the study, so disregard that part if you wish. For my own example, years ago i was given a cracked copy of neverwinter nights: hoards of the underdark. I loved this game but never would have tried it if i had to buy it. I played it for about two years, bought the game and all its expansions, and bought several downloadable modules.

Has nobody noticed that the gaming industry IS noticing piracy, and the effect that anti-piracy is having on sales? People keep mentioning World of Goo. Remember, world of goo is a successful game. Same with sins of a solar empire.They openly refused DRM and did pretty well. (sorry starforce) Even Steam is a big step in the right direction. These companies act like they learned something from the music industry and have taken steps to protect gaming from the same fate.

If you have ever used torrent sites you must realize that they have to be large to be worth it.It takes many seeders to get respectable speeds. And its not always the easiest to get the games working once you do get them. I personally reached the point of buying games again with portal. Great game at a great price. $20 (us), i didnt have to go out to buy it, no discs to lose or scratch, i can get it from any computer i use as long as i can use the internet, and it doesnt have to be taking up space on my hard drive when im not playing it.

To sum up and avoid arguments: DRM and online activation suck. And im not saying Steam or other services like it are the solution, just steps in the right direction. And kudos to the companies that dont waste time and money on protection that doesnt protect.

 

[Markness]

My biggest complaint with the article was that Shamus was complaining about the system without acknowledging the advantages or providing any sort of feasible alternative.

So to point out the flaws in a system you first must offer another system to replace it?

That doesn't make any sense.

If he didn't offer a different system then It can be assuming he wants the old system back since this article is all about death to online activation. Considering I think that cd protection is inferior and I have made plain my reasons in the first two posts on page 3, why get rid of online activation when there are no better alternatives? Note this quote from the article "Online activation is not reasonable at all. Of all the forms of copy protection, it is the most anti-consumer," (second paragraph). He wasn't just pointing out the flaws, he was saying how the other systems of copy protection are better.

What we have here is someone saying get rid of the new system, when the old system was worse. That's why he needs to provide an alternative system or else the arguments has nothing.

 

[Ytmh]

If he didn't offer a different system then It can be assuming he wants the old system back since this article is all about death to online activation.

...

What we have here is someone saying get rid of the new system, when the old system was worse. That's why he needs to provide an alternative system or else the arguments has nothing.

That doesn't fly, he didn't say he wanted the old system back. Likewise, the fact remains you can criticize something without offering an alternative or endorsing the previous options. Pointing out the flaws in something doesn't necessarily mean he supports anything else, in this case it's only a baseless assumption on your behalf.

Also, just because you happen to think that the old systems are inferior, that doesn't exactly make it true for everyone. There may as well be a middle ground between online/physical media copy protection (which will get cracked real quick anyway) that benefits people who pay and keeps them paying. Though frankly I'd rather go back to CDs and get rid of all this online garbage (even if the majority of pirate releases are pretty much exactly this, which I guess is.. uh. great. They're providing after all a service that the companies are neglecting.)

 

[Knight Templar]

My biggest complaint with the article was that Shamus was complaining about the system without acknowledging the advantages or providing any sort of feasible alternative.

So to point out the flaws in a system you first must offer another system to replace it?

That doesn't make any sense.

If he didn't offer a different system then It can be assuming he wants the old system back since this article is all about death to online activation. Considering I think that cd protection is inferior and I have made plain my reasons in the first two posts on page 3, why get rid of online activation when there are no better alternatives? Note this quote from the article "Online activation is not reasonable at all. Of all the forms of copy protection, it is the most anti-consumer," (second paragraph). He wasn't just pointing out the flaws, he was saying how the other systems of copy protection are better.

What we have here is someone saying get rid of the new system, when the old system was worse. That's why he needs to provide an alternative system or else the arguments has nothing.

If I don't want a red car that doesn't mean I immediately want a green one.

I can't see him saying the "old system" is his choice, so since your argument is based of this assumption it is rendered moot.
I could assume he doesn't want the "old system" and I would be just as right as you are now.

 

[Markness]

That doesn't fly, he didn't say he wanted the old system back. Likewise, the fact remains you can criticize something without offering an alternative or endorsing the previous options. Pointing out the flaws in something doesn't necessarily mean he supports anything else, in this case it's only a baseless assumption on your behalf.

Also, just because you happen to think that the old systems are inferior, that doesn't exactly make it true for everyone. There may as well be a middle ground between online/physical media copy protection (which will get cracked real quick anyway) that benefits people who pay and keeps them paying. Though frankly I'd rather go back to CDs and get rid of all this online garbage...

He made it quite clear he wanted the old system back. Sure, he didn't say it specifically but take these quotes
" If you're on the road a lot and hate dragging all of your discs around, then a one-time activation might sound like a lot less hassle." This implies that the disc method is better.
"Of all the forms of copy protection, it is the most anti-consumer," This says that the disc method is better and I had this quote in the part you cut out.

I got the distinct impression that Shamus isn't buying games that require online activation and would rather the system was done away with. It's not a "baseless" assumption. It's supported by his own words. He's not really pointing out the flaws. He points out 2 flaws and spends the rest of the article arguing against arguments that sound like they were made on steam forums. Throughout his argument is the message that online activation is a rip-off (if you think this statement is baseless, look at the title). One can infer that if online activation was discarded, the old cd system would be put back into place. I can't believe I needed two posts to get this across.

As for your second paragraph, yeah, I know online activation isn't easier for everyone, and I never said it was. However I have given plenty of arguments as to why it is superior overall. Why you'd prefer cd's is a mystery to me.

Also, welcome to the escapist.

edit:

If I don't want a red car that doesn't mean I immediately want a green one.

I can't see him saying the "old system" is his choice, so since your argument is based of this assumption it is rendered moot.
I could assume he doesn't want the "old system" and I would be just as right as you are now.

I hope the above post addressed your concerns but in case it didn't, heres an analogy. There are two colours of car - red and green - and everybody needs a car and one guy starts yelling about how he hates green cars and green cars are rip-offs. You can reasonable and accurately assume he wants a red car. Where's your evidence that he doesn't want the old system? You make out like I don't have evidence. Or Shamus could just clarify for us.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

in my opinion... all this drm anti-piracy crap hasta stop or the piracy problems are just going to keep climbing... I buy my games, because i support developers that make stuff i like... but if they wanna treat my money like some sorta gift rather than an exchange for purchase of software. then I'm not touching their stuff... period... there are TONS of games to play without, hell i have a library something like 300+ strong of games with no security online activation crap... a cd key is fine, since it's an inbuilt authorization doohicky that works offline. but all this online stuff...

to sum it up in a single sentance: "Companies should leave online activation to MMORPGs, and the like."

 

[z3rostr1fe]

Piracy never failed to provide a good discussion...

People would pirate games so that they could test drive it first. If it was that good, then they will buy it. If not, it will eventually go to the recycle bin anyway. The publishers should also understand that if the game was really that good, it won't be pirated and instead, will be bought. If they placed restrictions on those who bought the game, they are just producing people who will not buy any game from them anymore.

Note to game companies:
- Produce games that are really good
- Remove the protections used on the games
- Let the people decide

 

[Ytmh]

He made it quite clear he wanted the old system back. Sure, he didn't say it specifically but take these quotes
" If you're on the road a lot and hate dragging all of your discs around, then a one-time activation might sound like a lot less hassle." This implies that the disc method is better.
"Of all the forms of copy protection, it is the most anti-consumer," This says that the disc method is better and I had this quote in the part you cut out.

I got the distinct impression that Shamus isn't buying games that require online activation and would rather the system was done away with. It's not a "baseless" assumption. It's supported by his own words. He's not really pointing out the flaws. He points out 2 flaws and spends the rest of the article arguing against arguments that sound like they were made on steam forums. Throughout his argument is the message that online activation is a rip-off (if you think this statement is baseless, look at the title). One can infer that if online activation was discarded, the old cd system would be put back into place. I can't believe I needed two posts to get this across.

As for your second paragraph, yeah, I know online activation isn't easier for everyone, and I never said it was. However I have given plenty of arguments as to why it is superior overall. Why you'd prefer cd's is a mystery to me.

I'll quote from the article:

(And this is assuming online activated games don't require the disc to be in the drive. Sometimes they do, and we end up with the worst of both worlds.)

Worst from both worlds? So he doesn't seem to prefer either~ Anyhoo, we can sit around and interpret what he said in whatever way we want to better suit whatever argument, but the point here is that you're doing a lot of assuming and as others have already pointed out, not liking X does not automatically mean liking Y.

We also don't KNOW what kind of system would be in place if they discard online activation or any of that. Technology moves forward and my crystal ball is broken. Anything beyond that is pure speculation or at best educated guesswork.

Another important thing to point out is that number of flaws have nothing to do with their severity. Poison can be said to have a simple single flaw: It kills you and that's a rather important single problem. Same with the online activation thing, the things he points out are very important and they're not small problems. He spends most of the article getting those across.

Also, saying something is the "most anti-consumer" does imply that others are less anti-consumer, but just like there are weaker and stronger poisons it doesn't automatically follow he prefers the other methods either. As the quote I posted already shows, he doesn't really dig the other methods as much as you seem to believe.

Furthermore, from the article as you quoted it:

If you're on the road a lot and hate dragging all of your discs around, then a one-time activation might sound like a lot less hassle.

This is an argument FOR the elimination of the "disc in drive" system. He goes on to counter it, sure, but the exact quote you showed is a possible point FOR online authentication. Indeed, he doesn't like online activation systems at all and he wants them gone but he does point out the seeming advantages it may have (and provides a counterpoint to them as well.)