Third-Person, No-Save, and Consolitis 3

In addition to Bethesda, I'm happy to note that there's another developer/publisher who "gets it": Stardock.

From another story at Gamasutra today:

One thing the company doesn't plan on doing? Moving to other personal computing platforms. Stardock "does not, nor does it plan to, support the Mac or Linux markets," the report states. "Our focus is to help make the Windows platform as successful as possible. Stardock’s entertainment group may eventually make console games as well, but when it comes to application software, Windows is the platform."

Hallelujah! Apparently there are still some development houses where the Reality Distortion Field effect has not yet won the day.

Interestingly, Stardock also released its latest "Gamer's Bill of Rights." I usually think such efforts, while well-meaning, are a bit silly as they fail my test of a "right" being something which is inherent to a person and as such cannot be granted, but can only be recognized.

That said, Stardock's list of (what I would characterize as) "corporate intentions" is absolutely brilliant. It directly and specifically addresses the concerns in my "Consolitis" blog posts, and its provisions deserve to be highlighted:

1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that are incompatible or do not function at a reasonable level of performance for a full refund within a reasonable amount of time.
2. Gamers shall have the right that games they purchase shall function as designed without defects that would materially affect the player experience.
3. Gamers shall have the right that games will receive updates that address minor defects as well as improves gameplay based on player feedback within reason.
4. Gamers shall have the right to have their games not require a third-party download manager installed in order for the game to function.
5. Gamers shall have the right to have their games perform adequately if their hardware meets the posted recommended requirements.
6. Gamers shall have the right not to have any of their games install hidden drivers.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest version of the games they purchase.
8. Gamers whose computers meet the posted minimum requirements shall have the right to use their games without being materially inconvenienced due to copy protection or digital rights management.
9. Gamers shall have the right to play single player games without having to have an Internet connection.
10. Gamers shall have the right to sell or transfer the ownership of a physical copy of a game they own to another person.

I didn't care much for Sins of a Solar Empire. (As an RTS game it's not "strategic," and even if it were the real-time aspect would kill any hope for any strategic thinking.)

That said, I bought a copy of Sins (and played it), and I'll buy pretty much anything Stardock publishes. Because I so strongly support their positions on being PC-focused, on DRM, on performing as advertised, on being able to play a single-player game without an Internet leash, and on not restricting secondary sales, I'm ready to do my small bit to support not just their individual games but Stardock as a company.

Having those rules doesn't guarantee that every game developed or published by Stardock will be a winner. It just improves the odds.

These days, that's worth supporting.

Copy Protection of Games 3

The good news is that BioWare has announced that Mass Effect for the PC will not, after all, require online verification every ten days.

The bad news is that all the other DRM elements are still being forced on PC gamers who would otherwise be willing to pay to play this game.

BioWare noted that the change to the every-ten-days requirement was being made (at least in part) to help out military personnel who, after activating the game online, would not have Internet access and would otherwise not be able to play the game after ten days. If we take that at face value, then BioWare deserves a word of thanks.

But that still leaves open the question of why BioWare (or perhaps EA) shows no sign of altering its decision to require online activation of a single-player game.

Their stated reason is that it will deter piracy. They also suggest that this change better serves players by no longer requiring them to keep the game DVD in the disk drive while playing.

I'll leave the question of piracy alone for now. I'm certainly not going to parrot the chorus of assertions that "people will just pirate the game anyway" or even that "putting copy protection on a game makes it more likely to be pirated" as some people claim, confusing "pirated" with "stolen."

What about that other claim -- that forcing players of a single-player game to verify online is somehow better for them than requiring the DVD to be in the drive?

Here, I think some speculation might be fun. What if this is part of a strategic decision by EA to move away from retail sales of PC games?

That's not necessarily a bad thing for PC gamers. Big games are expensive to make, and part of the cost is retailer mark-up. If you can move to digital distribution as your primary sales medium, your costs should drop. Theoretically, that could allow producers to lower the purchase price of their games. Practically, of course, that won't happen; the vastly more likely outcome is that unit prices would remain the same and publishers would pocket the difference. But even that's not all bad for gamers, since it increases the likelihood of publishers staying in business, which means more and better games available.

EA may also see moving into digital distribution as a long-term competitive necessity. If that's "the future," EA will not want to leave it solely in the hands of Valve and/or Sony.

But if this is the real reason for pushing online activation on all their games, including single-player games like Mass Effect and Spore, then why not say so? If I can see that this is a business decision on EA's part, surely the professional MBAs over at Valve and Sony can figure it out, too. No competitive advantage would be lost by acknowledging a business strategy that everyone can see being implemented.

Furthermore, gamers are becoming increasingly sophisticated consumers. They know when they're being spun. So why do it? Why throw out some tepid rationalization for requiring online activation of single-player games like "it's easier than requiring a DVD" (when that's simply not true for many gamers) instead of an honest statement that "we're moving to digital distribution for all our games to reduce costs"?

If I'm correct in any meaningful percentage of this speculation, then it's another example of the Reality Distortion Field at work in the upper echelons of EA (and perhaps BioWare as well).

Here's another way to say it: Never, ever allow Marketing to run your company. Like fire, Marketing is a useful servant but a dangerous master... and they are never more dangerous than when your customers are knowledgeable about your industry and passionate about your products.

Copy Protection of Games 2

I'm annoyed.

First BioShock came out with the SecuROM Digital Rights Management (DRM) copy-protection software that not only required online activation and reactivation, but limited the number of installations to two (originally). The problem I had with this is the same I've had with Steam: it assumes that all consumers are criminals and insists that they submit to having invasive software placed on their PCs if they want to play the game. (A single-player game, I might add.) I despise that attitude; it is lazy (because it fails to make the effort of deterring the actual criminals) and insulting.

Now comes word that EA, publisher of the PC version of Mass Effect and of Spore, will be using SecuROM on those games and all their other major games to come.

Here's what Derek French of BioWare had to say when asked about this for Mass Effect for PC:

Mass Effect uses SecuROM and requires an online activation for the first time that you play it. Each copy of Mass Effect comes with a CD Key which is used for this activation and for registration here at the BioWare Community. Mass Effect does not require the DVD to be in the drive in order to play [as BioShock does], it is only for installation.

After the first activation, SecuROM requires that it re-check with the server within ten days (in case the CD Key has become public/warez'd and gets banned). Just so that the 10 day thing doesn't become abrupt, SecuROM tries its first re-check with 5 days remaining in the 10 day window. If it can't contact the server before the 10 days are up, nothing bad happens and the game still runs. After 10 days a re-check is required before the game can run.

[Derek later added:]

For clarity, though, an internet connection is not required to install, just to activate the first time, and every 10 days after. You can be completely connectionless for 9 days and encounter no problems playing Mass Effect. And you don't need the disk in the drive to play.

My view of this was nicely summed up by a subsequent reply in that thread:

Seriously, if I wanted to play an online game, I'd buy an online game. Once is okay to activate. Two checks... well, I can deal. But constant checks for as long as I own and play the game, every 10 days? That's gotten a tad excessive. Sure, I have an always-on net connection but what happens if I don't play for 11 days and the moment I want to play my connection is down? Are you saying I'm not going to be able to play my perfectly legitimate purchased copy of the game, even the retail version, until I get permission? That's the kind of idiocy that annoys customers.

I'd much rather have to put the DVD in the drive when I play than be forced to do more than one [validation]. At least I can guarantee that I'll always have the DVD, but there's no way I'll believe any guarantees that my net connection will be there and/or EA's servers won't mess it up.

Matt Martin over at GamesIndustry.biz obviously gets it as well. So why is it so hard for game publishers to grasp the concept that making their games less friendly to valid purchasers than to pirates is stupid?

I have no patience with or sympathy for those who pirate copyrighted materials. So it's freakin' irritating to me that the single-player games I'm most looking forward to playing are going to include copy-protection schemes that assume I will mass-copy and distribute their product on the street unless prevented from doing so. I'm not opposed to systems that counter pirates; I'm opposed to systems that treat everyone -- including me -- like a pirate.

If I were the paranoid type, I might wonder whether this is the latest tactic by console makers to try to eliminate the PC as a gaming platform, in this case by getting game publishers to make playing PC games so obnoxious that gamers just give up on them....

Bah.