Results tagged “SecuROM” from Birmingham Mail - Technobabble

The excellent new game from EA has run into controversy over the use of a copy protection device called SecuROM, which I blogged about on a previous occasion.

Basically PC buyers are only being allowed to install Spore three times.

So what, you might ask? Well for one thing when you normally buy a software title, you buy it in perpetuity, so you can install it as many times as you want.

You can also sell it second hand if you so wish. Clearly this issue has implications for sales so software manufacturers might want to find ways of halting it (and so, I would say, rob their customers of legitimately selling on their property).

But the issue of installations is also important - many people install and uninstall games frequently to free up hard drive space, just keeping the save games.

Why should a software company prevent this perfectly legitimate practice - I often wipe something I haven't played in a while, and hang on to the saves, only to fancy another bash later and put it back on again.

Perhaps these software restrictions are a step too far, and taking the capitalist ideal of trying to squeeze every last penny out of something to the point where they are annoying their own customers.

As to if this stops piracy - well, presumably hacked copies (which apparently were available before Spore was even released) get round this three installation rule anyway, rendering it somewhat pointless.

Big developers Bioware and EA have backed down after a huge online outcry over plans to dramatically ramp up their copywrite protection on two new releases.

Both Mass Effect and Spore were set to use SecuROM's software which forces the user to authenticate their copy of the game every ten days online.

The plans had caused something of a sensation on the internet, with fans complaining it was a step too far.

First Bioware decided to drop the plans in favour of the normal authenticate on installation, then EA followed suit.

The spectacular reverse ferret left both publishers with egg on their faces - but were they really in the wrong?

There's no doubt that software piracy is a big problem on the PC - more so than other platforms. Games these days have development periods running to years and cost millions of pounds to create.

Is it really so unreasonable for companies to protect their intellectual property?

I think on balance this one probably went a bit far - and ran the risk of the consumer being treated like a criminal - something which seems to be happening more and more.

I, for one, find it quite annoying when a program tells me on installation "your authentication code 'appears' to be correct". APPEARS!!! Thanks guys, after I've lashed out on your new product.

Plus with the SecuROM system there's the issue of needing to be online to authenticate - many people have a computer for games which they don't use for the internet for performance reasons.

Also, what happens if you decide you fancy a game two years after release? Will the authentication servers still be working?

And there's the issue of servers being overwhelmed, leading to waits to get on an play.

All in all I don't think it was a good idea - but let's face it - we're only going to get more and more of this kind of thing as developers perfectly reasonably try to beat the pirates.