 |
|
|
| |
Electronic Arts Releases DRM Reversal Tool
by David Jenkins
|
|
| |
|
April 1, 2009
|
| |
Electronic Arts’s change in policy regarding anti-piracy measures has seen the publisher release a “De-authorization Management Tool” (DMT) to reset existing game installation authorizations.
Previously, EA had instituted strict anti-piracy measures on PC games such as Spore and Crysis: Warhead. The use of SecuROM DRM (digital rights management) copy protection proved highly unpopular with consumers, with particularly vocal complaints over its use in Spore.
The furor over Spore led to the game being described as the most pirated PC game ever. Last week though, EA revealed that the forthcoming The Sims 3 would not ship with any DRM measures and would rely instead only on a standard key authentication system.
Technically the new DMT software does not allow any additional individual installations -- one of the key complaints from consumers. But it does allow previous existing authorizations to be reset and swapped between a user’s different PCs.
Titles supported by the DMT, which typically feature only five authorizations each, include Burnout Paradise, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3, Crysis: Warhead, Mass Effect, and, crucially, Spore.
|
| |
|
|
All those games are cracked anyway, so why not remove all the DRM altogether and make your customers happy?.
Because it's EA. They are fools all the year, not just today.
There are also frequently contractual obligations between a DRM package provider and a publisher which require that certain amounts of the publisher's games (up to and including "all") ship with the DRM provider's DRM package. "If you ship just this one title with PiratesGetHerpesROM, we charge you five dollars per copy shipped. Ship three with us, and it's a buck each. But if you ship ALL your games with PiratesGetHerpesROM, you pay 50 cents per copy shipped." The contract gets signed, and then you don't get to back out of it no matter how many pitchforks-and-torches are assembled at your doorstep (even if you're AIG... ooh, general relevancy!). The only people who have the authority to change that contract are the courts, and the publisher/dev/DRM company if -all- parties agree.
We can put the hate on the publishers all we want, but the fact is that much of this originates in the money-chain (and the attendant lawyer-chain). DRM sometimes originates not where you'd think it might.
Ultimately it's the fault of the publisher having too strict of limits on their activation. The technology itself doesn't control these limits. The user of the technology gets to decide.