Here is the whole article (without pic):
Much like Ubisoft's newest games, when C&C4 is released tomorrow it will only work while you're connected to EA's servers. We've done some extensive cable-yanking experiments to see how the game reacts if you're disconnected from them during play, and the results are... bad.
After creating an account, assigning your serial number to it and logging into the game, you still need to be online to start a single player game: if not, you're logged out and unable to play.
Once you're in-game, getting disconnected produces this message:
PIC (www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=239583
As it says, you can continue to play, but your progress won't be saved.
I tried reconnecting, then continuing with the mission and eventually completing it. But at the end, I was booted back to the main menu, all progress lost. My internet connection had been working fine, but the game never bothered to reconnect me to EA's servers.
Once it's been disconnected, it doesn't seem to make any attempt to reconnect. That means even a momentary interruption to your connection kills your session completely: everything you do from then on is pointless.
The only way to avoid losing progress is to save your game the moment you get that message, quit out, then start it again. Otherwise, you won't be connected to EA's servers even if you're connected to the internet, and finishing any mission will erase all your progress.
We've already seen with Ubisoft's authentication servers that your own internet connection is not the only requirement with these systems: the publisher's servers have to be up and working too, and this is by no means guaranteed. Now, if your connection to EA's servers is lost even for a moment, everything you do from then on is a waste of time. You have to quit the game and restart it to even attempt to reconnect.
It gets worse.
EA have previously shut down the multiplayer servers for 78 of their games, sometimes barely more than a year after release. On Tuesday, they shut down all servers for PC games Mercenaries 2 and Lord of the Rings: Conquest, which only came out last year. Naturally we contacted EA to ask how long they intended to keep the servers for C&C 4 online, but have received no response.
All the while, EA's Command & Conquer Community Manager is claiming "Command & Conquer 4 has NO DRM" on their forums. This is seemingly by some new definition of digital rights management, in which systems that restrict your ability to play don't count.
The game revolves around earning experience points to unlock access to new units, and this information is stored on EA's servers. A remotely useful feature for some, but does nothing to explain why anyone should be required to stay online to play.
C&C4 is out in Europe tomorrow. Our review isn't on sale just yet, but I can tell you we didn't much care for the game.
This explains why C&C4 has poor user scores.
I don't know if it is the same with AC2 in this regard. But, it seems more and more games are coming out with this form of DRM.
An example of a game that did well and was pirated heavily: Galactic Civilizations II.
"Stardock has announced progress with its "NO Copy Protection" anti-piracy strategy for Galactic Civilizations II. The bottom line is that Stardock has seen no lost sales from not implementing any advanced anti-piracy tools. This attitude continues to be controversial in the computer games industry.
Please Note - Stardock does some positive business activities that help fight piracy. They have an excellent product, cultivate a positive relationship with their customers and community, and regularly update the game. All of these measure work together to deter piracy and encourage more purchases.
One of the misleading number that industry analyst cite is the rate of piracy. This number is the number of pirated copies of a game or other piece of software. This number is then used to derive lost revenues.
Of course this is utter nonsense.
The actual lost revenue rate or lost sales rate is the number of individuals that would have purchased the item if they couldn't find a pirated copy... this number is much, much lower - though it varies widely depending on the product.
Hooray for Gamers! FrogboyThis month's Computer Gaming World has a letter to the editor giving us kudos for not putting CD copy protection on Galactic Civilizations II. In it, he says that not having copy protection helped make his decision to get the game.
As a gamer, I have a similar point of view. I lose my CDs. I scratch my CDs. My desk is a mess. Nowadays, with games requring 3 or 4 CDs (I wish retailers would universally accept DVDs but that's a different issue), keeping CDs around to play is annoying.
I don't have exact worldwide sales numbers for Galactic Civilizations II, but we do know they're well over 100,000 units sold worldwide in the first 90 or so days. That number is about as high as a game of our distribution level can sell in that time frame (units sold is a function of popularity X outlets available in the same way that a movie's first weekend take is a function of how well received it is X how many theaters it's showing in).
The question about copy protection is straight forward in our view: Does CD copy protection generate more sales due to less piracy than it costs in sales due to people on the fence deciding not to purchase.
CD copy protection to me is a lot like the issue I have with shareware. I don't mind registing shareware. But I know that I'm going to lose that serial # at some point. IF the site has a very very simple way of looking me up and sending me my info that is very apparent, then I'm inclined to buy it. Similarly, not having CD copy protection helps protect my investment -- knowing I'll be able to play the game even if I lose those CDs.
In GalCiv II's case, our upgrade system even has electronic registration. When someone upgrades to one of the new versions, they enter in their serial # that came with the game and it automatically registers them. So even if they lose the CDs AND their hard drive dies, they can re-download the entire game from us (not just updates the ENTIRE GAME) even yeras from now.
For these reasons, we are convinced that game developers/publishers can increase their sales by focusing on SERVING their customers rather than focusing on thwarting pirates. If someone is paying $40 for a game, they should be treated with respect, not with suspicion."
So does DRM actually work?! It doesn't appear this is the case with Stardock's bold move, and all this DRM stuff may acually MAKE pirates more pervasive, instead of less.
Log in to comment