Saturday, December 27, 2008
Why Online Activation Sucks
Today, Shamus Young offered a commentary on why EA's removal of third-party DRM for it's Steam-based games was hardly the gaming nirvana gamers should have been praying for. In a nutshell, the problem is that online activation offers hardships that gamers shouldn't have to deal with. It's a hassle, especially for gamers like me who are inclined to play games long after the publisher has written off their remaining inventory.
I don't disagree. However, there are some positive aspects to online activation that I would like to note:
#1 - No need to spend a few minutes digging through your old discs to find the game you want to play right now (maybe that's only a problem for me...)
#2 - No more worries about your copy-protected disc going bad
#3 - If you've lost your activation code, you can contact customer support and get it back. Uh - probably.
Do these advantages outweigh the fact that your games effectively have a self-destruct time-bomb on them? Maybe. Depends on how you roll, I guess.
Is piracy making it impossible to do it any other way? I don't know the answer to this one, either. My personal feeling is that consumer rights should and ultimately will have to trump those of the publishers - not from a legal standpoint, but from a business standpoint. The idea of paying $60+ to rent a new game, for an indefinite period until such time as the provider is unwilling or unable to grant explicit permission to install (or, worse, to play) still doesn't wash too well with me, either.
Games are a product, or they are a service.
We have expectations of products. My lawnmower is a product. If it expires after it's warranty period, I expect to be responsible for getting it fixed or replaced. The rights and responsibilities are my own. But I also do not have any obligations to the original manufacturer. I do not need to call Sears for permission each season to use it, or for permission to use it to mow my neighbor's lawn. If I want to loan it to my neighbor, that's my right. If I want to sell it at a yard sale, I also have that right. If my daughter wants to make money during the summer using it to mow other people's lawns, that's also our right. Likewise, beyond the product's suitability for its advertised purpose and some reasonable assurances of safety and quality (though what it "reasonable" has certainly been twisted in the U.S. under the manipulations of the legal profession), there are no obligations on the part of the manufacturer or seller. The implied consumer contract with products is both simple and natural.
A service, on the other hand, is a different animal, and is neither so simple or so natural. But we've made it work. Any "implied" contract is trumped by often confusing written ones, but there are some expectations there, too. We pay for ... well, a service. There are greater obligations for both parties, particularly on the part of the service provider - but in return they get greater control over whatever it is they are offering. For example, services are often non-transferrable. I can't just let my neighbor "borrow" my insurance policy for a trip to the emergency room.
The online activation thing feels to me a lot like a case of a publisher trying to have its cake and eat it too. (Not that I ever really understood that phrase - I guess after you eat it you no longer have it or something.) They want to restrict the consumer rights as if it was a service, but they don't want to take upon themselves the obligations of truly being a service provider.
The hybrid that favors one side is not completely without precedent. After all, we're all used to our videos having a warning at the beginning that the video is intended for home use only, not commercial viewing.
But in an industry where we are used to companies appearing and folding within the same decade (hey, anybody hear from Flagship Studios lately?), promises of long-term support for our games ring hollow.
But my tirade notwithstanding, I'm actually not completely against online activation / authorization. I just think the use of it as an absolute gatekeeper is stupid - and sucks. As Shamus notes, not only is it a pain in the patootey for legitimate consumers, too often it is no obstacle at all for the pirates. In other words, piracy provides a superior product than what can be provided by the publisher.
That's bad business, folks. If I am buying new shoes, and my choice is between a brand name and a cheaper no-name knockoff, my concern is usually weighing the difference between quality and price. I'm too old and too geeky to let the brand affect my self-image. But if the cheaper no-name knockoff is actually a far superior product, sure to last longer and provide me with better support - there IS no choice.
That is why I feel that online activation is ultimately doomed. It's not just a good / bad thing - it's bad business which cannot be sustained over the long haul.
Is there a better way? Again, I don't know. But as I've said before, I think there is some giving AND taking required. Carrots, not just sticks. Provide me with an incentive to ALLOW you to authorize my installation online. But don't just try and prevent me from playing. Give me a superior playing experience. Free updates. Additional content. A feeling of community. Additional service. Stuff that the pirates just aren't going to (easily) get. Hell, just give me twice as many hitpoints and let me do twice as much damage against unauthorized copies in online play! Sell me on the advantages of being "legit."
I think this is the direction the industry is going to have to take in the not-to-distant future. The companies willing to take the steps in that direction will be leading the pack and have the luxury of being able to define the terms to their advantage. And the guys that stubbornly demand online activation PLUS copy-protected DVD-ROMs in the drive are going to be left in the dust.
"EA On Steam" at Twenty Sided
Labels: Biz
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 3:51 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I play a lot of old games, often years and years after I bought them. I have no problem with digging out the original disks or even using old copy protection methods. But I'd hate to rely on a game company staying in business - or even staying interested in old games - and I CERTAINLY don't want to just rent a game.
Hmm,... I guess I'd have no problem with online activation if I could be assured that games would remain playable LONG after their sale.
Hmm,... I guess I'd have no problem with online activation if I could be assured that games would remain playable LONG after their sale.
"#1 - No need to spend a few minutes digging through your old discs to find the game you want to play right now (maybe that's only a problem for me...)"
All Floppies/CD's imaged. Stored on house server and external hard drives for backups and portable use.
"#2 - No more worries about your copy-protected disc going bad"
CD/Floppies are imaged onto house server and external hard drives.
"#3 - If you've lost your activation code, you can contact customer support and get it back. Uh - probably."
Codes are stored on excel spreadsheet and are printed out to a hardcopy that goes in CD case.
Like anything in life things require a little work. The laziness of the modern gamer is probably the leading contributor to the downfall of gaming. (for gamers that give a crap anyway)
All Floppies/CD's imaged. Stored on house server and external hard drives for backups and portable use.
"#2 - No more worries about your copy-protected disc going bad"
CD/Floppies are imaged onto house server and external hard drives.
"#3 - If you've lost your activation code, you can contact customer support and get it back. Uh - probably."
Codes are stored on excel spreadsheet and are printed out to a hardcopy that goes in CD case.
Like anything in life things require a little work. The laziness of the modern gamer is probably the leading contributor to the downfall of gaming. (for gamers that give a crap anyway)
The online activation thing feels to me a lot like a case of a publisher trying to have its cake and eat it too.
They want to restrict the consumer rights as if it was a service, but they don't want to take upon themselves the obligations of truly being a service provider.
This I absolutely agree with - because it has nothing to do with the designers & programmers (who of course are against piracy but are also against torturing the player) but with marketing.
Marketing often works against the customer and this is one clear case, IMHO.
First of all they hype the gamer for a long time then they try to sell as much as they can in a short time.
And often before the game is finished, too!
Editiorial staffs of magazines are put under pressure ("Gerstmangate") and gamers are either simply lied to or held responsible for the shoddy games by the publisher! (European gamers will remember the second JoWooD-debacle)
But it's not only marketing:
Support is often non-existant because it is deemed too costly - especially for older games.
But really, support expenses should be included into the calculation form the beginning. Lots of long lasting companies do that.
You offer a product - you have to offer support. As simple as that!
About publishers biting the dust:
I'm in the process of cataloging all my video games and see that some publishers of my many Playstation 1 games aren't in the business anymore (Acclaim for example). And those games aren't really ancient - they are only from the penultimate console generation.
Who wants to bet how many DRM-protected games get depatched by a company that is shutting it's doors?
How many games will become unplayable because a former employee doesn't want to risk putting a patch online because the rights of the game slumber in the portfolio of acompany that collects such assets?
Side note: Usually it's not the design studios that cause financial trouble to the publisher - it's bad business decisions and bad marketing.
They want to restrict the consumer rights as if it was a service, but they don't want to take upon themselves the obligations of truly being a service provider.
This I absolutely agree with - because it has nothing to do with the designers & programmers (who of course are against piracy but are also against torturing the player) but with marketing.
Marketing often works against the customer and this is one clear case, IMHO.
First of all they hype the gamer for a long time then they try to sell as much as they can in a short time.
And often before the game is finished, too!
Editiorial staffs of magazines are put under pressure ("Gerstmangate") and gamers are either simply lied to or held responsible for the shoddy games by the publisher! (European gamers will remember the second JoWooD-debacle)
But it's not only marketing:
Support is often non-existant because it is deemed too costly - especially for older games.
But really, support expenses should be included into the calculation form the beginning. Lots of long lasting companies do that.
You offer a product - you have to offer support. As simple as that!
About publishers biting the dust:
I'm in the process of cataloging all my video games and see that some publishers of my many Playstation 1 games aren't in the business anymore (Acclaim for example). And those games aren't really ancient - they are only from the penultimate console generation.
Who wants to bet how many DRM-protected games get depatched by a company that is shutting it's doors?
How many games will become unplayable because a former employee doesn't want to risk putting a patch online because the rights of the game slumber in the portfolio of acompany that collects such assets?
Side note: Usually it's not the design studios that cause financial trouble to the publisher - it's bad business decisions and bad marketing.
# posted by 
: December 28, 2008 1:07 AM
: December 28, 2008 1:07 AM
I thought that most of those had already been available through EA's online store, which presumably uses an online activation thingy.
The difference between Steam and EA's store is that people seem to think Steam gives better customer support than EA. And has a few other things, like a community.
So, while online activation has a lot of negative points, that they've finally realised that an online store with a terrible reputation for customer support sucks is probably a good thing.
Though I have the suspicion that EA's current copy protection model is:
give them 3 activations, then when we "listen to the customers" and change it to 5 with a way of getting back old ones, they'll be so grateful they'll forget that 5 activations still sucks.
The difference between Steam and EA's store is that people seem to think Steam gives better customer support than EA. And has a few other things, like a community.
So, while online activation has a lot of negative points, that they've finally realised that an online store with a terrible reputation for customer support sucks is probably a good thing.
Though I have the suspicion that EA's current copy protection model is:
give them 3 activations, then when we "listen to the customers" and change it to 5 with a way of getting back old ones, they'll be so grateful they'll forget that 5 activations still sucks.
# posted by : December 28, 2008 2:11 AM
: December 28, 2008 2:11 AM
Though I have the suspicion that EA's current copy protection model is:
give them 3 activations, then when we "listen to the customers" and change it to 5 with a way of getting back old ones, they'll be so grateful they'll forget that 5 activations still sucks.
Exactly.
And when the public outrage is too big they let the media announce the following:
"EA is reportedly working on a free tool to reclaim activations!"
and
"We ourself are dedicated gamers and we swear by the eyelight of our unborn children that we publish a patch to disable activation when the product reaches EOL status!"
give them 3 activations, then when we "listen to the customers" and change it to 5 with a way of getting back old ones, they'll be so grateful they'll forget that 5 activations still sucks.
Exactly.
And when the public outrage is too big they let the media announce the following:
"EA is reportedly working on a free tool to reclaim activations!"
and
"We ourself are dedicated gamers and we swear by the eyelight of our unborn children that we publish a patch to disable activation when the product reaches EOL status!"
# posted by : December 28, 2008 3:46 AM
: December 28, 2008 3:46 AM
What is the saying about the road to hell? :)
The thing that makes it so stupid is that you can probably download the friggin' tool right NOW - if you don't mind the risk of viruses and trojans - from a pirate site. The only people who are inconvenienced are the very types of people who are NOT THE PROBLEM (so long as you put in a bare-bones basic system to combat "casual piracy.")
The thing that makes it so stupid is that you can probably download the friggin' tool right NOW - if you don't mind the risk of viruses and trojans - from a pirate site. The only people who are inconvenienced are the very types of people who are NOT THE PROBLEM (so long as you put in a bare-bones basic system to combat "casual piracy.")
The online activation thing feels to me a lot like a case of a publisher trying to have its cake and eat it too. (Not that I ever really understood that phrase - I guess after you eat it you no longer have it or something.)
This will explain it: http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/eatcake.html
You already had it pretty well guessed. :)
If you didn't already know, the phrase means they want it all their way, especially when their wishes are contradictory.
This will explain it: http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/eatcake.html
You already had it pretty well guessed. :)
If you didn't already know, the phrase means they want it all their way, especially when their wishes are contradictory.
# posted by : December 28, 2008 7:34 PM
: December 28, 2008 7:34 PM
In my opinion #1, #2 and #3 are far outweighted by the fact that I do not want to buy games I have hardly any rights to use. Why should I pay the full price for a game I may not be able to play tomorrow?
Companies come and go. Even big ones may be gone in a week; after claiming to have record profits the week before. Expecting patches is absurd. When a company goes belly-up, the rights to the games will end up in another company or - in the worst case - some IP-troll corporation.
They don't have any incentive to offer free patches for old games. I doubt big players, that will still be around, will waste any effort on patches. There is no more money to be made. On the contrary, why would they even want to have people playing old games? They want them to spend money on new ones. It's as simple as that. "We will provide a patch." is nothing but a marketing lie.
Companies come and go. Even big ones may be gone in a week; after claiming to have record profits the week before. Expecting patches is absurd. When a company goes belly-up, the rights to the games will end up in another company or - in the worst case - some IP-troll corporation.
They don't have any incentive to offer free patches for old games. I doubt big players, that will still be around, will waste any effort on patches. There is no more money to be made. On the contrary, why would they even want to have people playing old games? They want them to spend money on new ones. It's as simple as that. "We will provide a patch." is nothing but a marketing lie.
# posted by : December 30, 2008 3:35 AM
: December 30, 2008 3:35 AM
As far as I am concerned, Stardock has down this about as well as any company I have seen. They do not put DRM on their software and provide downloadable versions of their software.
They provide a service that makes it advantageous to subscribe and register the game. They will store your software ID so you can redownload the software in the future and they have a very nice patching interface. You can get early beta versions if that is your thing. Pirates could and probably do redistribute these patches but stardock is still far easier to use at least for now.
Steam is similar in concept though I prefer the stardock model as it does not require me to run additional software to play the game. Steam doesn't let you register just any game they support so its not that useful.
They provide a service that makes it advantageous to subscribe and register the game. They will store your software ID so you can redownload the software in the future and they have a very nice patching interface. You can get early beta versions if that is your thing. Pirates could and probably do redistribute these patches but stardock is still far easier to use at least for now.
Steam is similar in concept though I prefer the stardock model as it does not require me to run additional software to play the game. Steam doesn't let you register just any game they support so its not that useful.
# posted by : December 30, 2008 4:50 PM
: December 30, 2008 4:50 PM
Yeah, I think Stardock has the right idea overall. I'm also thrilled that Good Old Games is also taking the charge - though I have heard they've had publishers push back on the no-DRM thing. I mean, COME ON PEOPLE. We're talking games that are ten years old or older now! Do you really think DRM at this stage of the game will be worth the effort in ANY way?
... Or maybe the publishers are concealing how much money they are really making from their back-list.
I don't know. I think the copy protection / DRM companies have publishers brainwashed at this point.
... Or maybe the publishers are concealing how much money they are really making from their back-list.
I don't know. I think the copy protection / DRM companies have publishers brainwashed at this point.
FYI, in French, there's a nice expression (and making more sense) equivalent to "You can't have your cake and eat it too". It translates to "You can't have both the butter and the butter money / and the dairywoman".
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
