NationStates Jolt Archive

http://kotaku.com/387846/mass-effect-copy-protection-an-opportunity-to-use-the-adjective-draconian

Way to go EA.
I predict epic fail in terms of sales, but a large amount of pirating.
I WAS planning to buy Spore, myself, but since EA has decided that anybody who wants to play will be required to do so with a probe up their ass, I think I'll just wait for the massive backlash to kick in.

For those too lazy to click, EA has declared that the PC versions of Mass Effect and Spore will REQUIRE players to, essentially, re-register the game every ten days with their online servers.
Naturally, EA states that these servers wont ever go down, and that those who do experience problems will be able to contact EA customer support (oxymoron? Or maybe just moronic.)

I'm just WAITING for the forces of Anonymous to find out about this. I further predict massive DDoSing of their verification servers.

Customers to EA: Fuck You!

I WAS going to get Mass Effect, and later Spore. Now I refuse to buy anything EA until they reverse this decision.

Epic lulz.

*sigh*...you know, there've only been maybe 4 games in the last 6 years that I've actually wanted to buy and play, and now they have to go and make it a huge pain in the ass.

So much for that one.

pure brilliance...this definitely won't drive more people to download pirated/cracked versions of the games without the silly copy protection, right?

Video games are serious business.

And to finish my trolling...buy it on console!

*runs*

DAMMIT...I was SO looking forward to Spore...

EA once again shows their full of Assholes...

$10 says 90% of the people who actually play this are pirates who bypass the bullshit copy protection. Which of course the industry will use to say "omg, look, see, pirates!"

Spore is similarly planned to take advantage of the SecuROM copy protection system, one that we're sure is going to eliminate every illegitimate copy of the game from appearing on torrent trackers for at least 48 hours.
*Makes note to take Spore off the "to buy" list and add it to the "to pirate" list*

$10 says 90% of the people who actually play this are pirates who bypass the bullshit copy protection. Which of course the industry will use to say "omg, look, see, pirates!"

Hell, the pirated version by all means will probably be better than the retail because they'll remove/circumvent that annoying validation thing.

It's actually becoming less hassle to get a pirated version of a game than to actually buy that game and go through all the authentication crap. Not exactly the best way to cut down on piracy.

If they really wanted to lower piracy, theyd lower the price, and introduce LESS Authentication requirements...

Finances and Hassle=Number One reason for Piracy...

That and Jack Sparrow's just so fucking kewl, lol

It's actually becoming less hassle to get a pirated version of a game than to actually buy that game and go through all the authentication crap. Not exactly the best way to cut down on piracy.
The fuckwits in charge of EA havn't learned that yet because they are just a bunch of corporate bigwigs who know two things: jack and shit. They don't understand the industry; they don't understand technology; and they don't understand their customers.

I still can't believe that EA bought Bioware.

The list of quality developers grows thin...

There's still Bungie...




Thats prettymuch all i got, lol...I miss pre-sammy Sega...

You know what?

Nobody will stop buying EA games. At all. They are just too good.

There's still Bungie...




Thats prettymuch all i got, lol...I miss pre-sammy Sega...

Eh, don't go blaming Sammy for Sega's shortcomings. It's not as if Sammy is directly involved with in-house development, which has been on a very steep and very slippery slope for the past six years.

Especially Sonic Team. Egads.

as a tech support worker...

I have only one comment on one section of the article.

EA is ready and we are confident there will be no server problems. EA has assured us that they have their authorization systems and customer support staff in place and ready for the launch of Mass Effect for PC. Anyone having issues with getting the game activated will be able to contact EA Support and get their problem resolved.

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Methinks they forgot which is the Fantasy and which is the Real Life concerning things like this...

I still can't believe that EA bought Bioware.

The list of quality developers grows thin...

It's very believable that EA could buy Bioware... What irks me is that Bioware let EA buy them out, knowing full well what their business practices are like.

Money talks, and a lot of people end up showing just how many faces they have.

Ill blame Sammy if i damn well please, lol...

Just cause i actually own a Saturn doesnt mean im a fanboy in denial:(

You know what?

Nobody will stop buying EA games. At all. They are just too good.
"Good" and "bought out all their competitors" arn't the same thing.

EA is ready and we are confident there will be no server problems.

One day they're going to have to shut down the servers and make the game unplayable. Poor classic gamers of the future...

You know what?

Nobody will stop buying EA games. At all. They are just too good.

Or option B: Completely mediocre. Answers on a postcard.

Especially Sonic Team. Egads.

Rejoice! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Unleashed)

Blizzard rules!!!!


But yeah this is complete bullshit only corporate dumbasses think like this

no one else does

At least we can be certain that Stardock won't go this route.

Rejoice! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Unleashed)

Unfortunately, ive heard those claims before from Sega...Sonic died along with the Dreamcast...this is Sammy's evil Clone Sonic, lol...

I think they should make a new Vectorman for Wii, its the perfect opportunity to take advantage of the system's capabilities, and is one of the few Sega Characters whose name hasnt been dragged through the mud....though they tried, Fortunately they wised up beforehand lol...

Blizzard rules!!!!


But yeah this is complete bullshit only corporate dumbasses think like this

no one else does



Blizzard has two heads. One cares about its customers. The other doesnt give two shits. The former head is slowing being eaten by the later head.

Ah, EA, will they ever learn?

"Okay Artie, now if you could just bend forward and drop the drawers."

*Artie does so, and as EA walks up, they are met with a very powerfully launched heel to the tesicles*

"Oh, sorry about that, EA. Been practicing a method to keep a Lunatic Goofball Clown from trying to sneak up behind me and air-horn me. Did my total disregard for anything that you've put out in the past three years hurt that much? Honestly, I'm sorry, but now between you guys and Nintendo's next Mario game I don't know which is worse. Say hi to Satan for me, he still owes me a few beers." *More kicks, to various parts of the body, then Artie walks away.*

Ah, EA, will they ever learn?

"Okay Artie, now if you could just bend forward and drop the drawers."

*Artie does so, and as EA walks up, they are met with a very powerfully launched heel to the tesicles*

"Oh, sorry about that, EA. Been practicing a method to keep a Lunatic Goofball Clown from trying to sneak up behind me and air-horn me. Did my total disregard for anything that you've put out in the past three years hurt that much? Honestly, I'm sorry, but now between you guys and Nintendo's next Mario game I don't know which is worse. Say hi to Satan for me, he still owes me a few beers." *More kicks, to various parts of the body, then Artie walks away.*

Surely, you would think that Artie would have a much greater resolve...

http://pnp.norecess.org/pictures/artie.gif

...After all, he is the strongest man in the world. A few kicks to the jewels, while fitting, just isn't textbook Artie.

Well, I was going to buy spore, and was greatly considering buying Mass Effect, but now I think I'll just play Sins of a Solar Empire instead.

Surely, you would think that Artie would have a much greater resolve...

http://pnp.norecess.org/pictures/artie.gif

...After all, he is the strongest man in the world. A few kicks to the jewels, while fitting, just isn't textbook Artie.

Bah! EA has whammy bars, which affect me like "deadly kryptonite." Underhand tactics must be returned in kind, before the whammy bars are liquefied and injected.

I'm quite happy that I bought Mass Effect for XBox, now.

Blizzard has two heads. One cares about its customers. The other doesnt give two shits. The former head is slowing being eaten by the later head.
First of all, it's "latter," and second of all using "former/latter" is both pretentious and lazy.

First of all, it's "latter," and second of all using "former/latter" is both pretentious and lazy.

Later is just as acceptable as latter, and it's not lazy, it's efficient.

First of all, it's "latter," and second of all using "former/latter" is both pretentious and lazy.

How can I say this politelly...


Get the fuck over it?

Snip

I'm just WAITING for the forces of Anonymous to find out about this. I further predict massive DDoSing of their verification servers.

While I Detest that decision made by them I doubt there is a serious long term threat of DDoSing with someone that has the resources as EA to put it down for longer then 10 days if at all ...

Not if they have anyone competent and willing to back it with a bit of money in the event of an attack

Are these the only two games (so far) that have been linked with this technology?
What do you think (free of bias) the chances of EA or anyone else for that matter releaing further games with this attached to it.

Note: While I am a gamer, and I have more PC and console games sitting around the house than I can count (yes I am a hoarder but that's because you never know when you might want to play Commander Keen again), I am not a hardcore gamer, so while you guys know the ins and outs of all game programmers and all the little ways to get around it I would thank you if you were to give me detail in layman’s terms.

While I Detest that decision made by them I doubt there is a serious long term threat of DDoSing with someone that has the resources as EA to put it down for longer then 10 days if at all ...

Not if they have anyone competent and willing to back it with a bit of money in the event of an attack

Actually, the dumber ones of anonymous may try that. The smarter ones will crack the server authentication system, sneak a redirect of all incoming authentication attempts to their servers, and then feed an "authenticated" entry into EA server logs.

Actually, the dumber ones of anonymous may try that. The smarter ones will crack the server authentication system, sneak a redirect of all incoming authentication attempts to their servers, and then feed an "authenticated" entry into EA server logs.
Possibly ... there are a rather lot of steps and unknowns in that sort of scenario to realistically make that sort of prediction at this point.

Either way if I was going to have to pick a more likely scenario I would think the easier route for someone to simply make a local side application that generates a realistic but fake response locally to the softwares query's (similar to some of the fake local steam servers that were out there for awhile)

That or crack the auth system on the client side directly rather then faking it

It is way way easier to break a piece of software which runs in a realm that is controlled by the users rather then a narrow scope service running on a remote machine with a much more restrictive access structure

Not saying it cant be done but still ...

There's still Bungie...




Thats prettymuch all i got, lol...I miss pre-sammy Sega...

Square Enix? Rockstar? Nintendo? Capcom?

Seriously...expand your horizons outside of Madden and Halo

They... They just killed their own games... probably.

I long for the days when execs were just happy games were making money instead of these control freaks. Do they know the implications of having to reregister over and over again? To me it already kills some of the joy in playing games. Also, what will be the effects on the games themselves. Many players pull all-nighters; what will happen if you are playing when the time expires?


... I need to check P.A.

Square Enix? Rockstar? Nintendo? Capcom?

Seriously...expand your horizons outside of Madden and Halo

Well...I havent liked a Square game since FFX...and GTA is only enjoyable if you dont actually play the game and run around killing things...Mario/(insert overused Nintendo Character here) Clone number 3,771 isnt really all that great at this point...though i do give props for Brawl, was totally kick ass....

Though, i did forget Capcom, minus MegaMan, still a quality Developer, cant wait for Street Fighter IV...

And, I hate Madden, overrated crap...I liked the 2k series...

and, although a little off-topic, Midway's still good, cant wait for MKvsDCU...

It still doesn't mean they aren't widely popular and driving forces in the industry. You said "at least there's still Bungie" like it was the only other decent option other than EA. There are a lot of others.

Square-Enix is perhaps my favorite. Final Fantasy XIII and XIII-Versus for Playstation 3 are going to be ridiculous. Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions and Crisis Core for PSP are the two best games for the system.

Rockstar revolutionizes the industry and sells in hundreds of millions. GTA isn't my favorite game either, but you can't deny how big of a deal it is for gaming. Sales that big legitimize the gaming industry. 10/10 scores on both IGN and GameSpot can't be denied too much either.

Nintendo has its moments, but it also has it's amazing moments. Mario 64 changed platforming years ago and had yet to really be eclipsed since. Super Mario Galaxy did just that. When's the last time a platforming game's been good? Jak and Daxter? Nintendo, for all the stupid Mario Party 79's they put out, also puts out revolutionary games, tied into a revolutionary system: the Wii.

Capcom is about as classic as they come, with new twists all the time. The Breath of Fire and Street Fighter series' are both Capcom. Devil May Cry 4 is Capcom, and amazing.

Oh, and lets not forget two others: Atlus and Konami. Atlus makes some of the greatest RPG's for Sony. Digital Devil Saga, Nocturne, Persona 3. All of these are out of this world, and VERY different from the normal RPG fare. Konami is going to destroy the market with Metal Gear Solid 4. That's all there is to it.

There are a good number of non-EA (or Bungie) publishers out there. Sure EA buys up everything, but here's an idea: DON'T BUY THEIR GENERIC GAMES. That's the thing about EA. Rarely do they make a DISMAL game, but rarely do they make a GOOD game either. It's all run of the mill boring ass every day stuff. Buy something different.

It still doesn't mean they aren't widely popular and driving forces in the industry.

Popularity and Success /= Quality games...

EA is ok...

Possibly ... there are a rather lot of steps and unknowns in that sort of scenario to realistically make that sort of prediction at this point.

Either way if I was going to have to pick a more likely scenario I would think the easier route for someone to simply make a local side application that generates a realistic but fake response locally to the softwares query's (similar to some of the fake local steam servers that were out there for awhile)

That or crack the auth system on the client side directly rather then faking it

It is way way easier to break a piece of software which runs in a realm that is controlled by the users rather then a narrow scope service running on a remote machine with a much more restrictive access structure

Not saying it cant be done but still ...

Oh, I know the most likely way it will be done. But at the same time, this authentication system is likely to give a passageway for the more malicious coders to poke into EA servers and wreak havoc. A consequence I cannot say I am entirely unhappy with.

Popularity and Success /= Quality games...

No, but the companies I listed do "=" quality games.

Oh, I know the most likely way it will be done. But at the same time, this authentication system is likely to give a passageway for the more malicious coders to poke into EA servers and wreak havoc. A consequence I cannot say I am entirely unhappy with.

On what basis is it "likely"? I guess I have not seen any hard specs for the authentication systems as of yet would be interested in looking if you have that information.

Without that sort of information I could not even begin to assess the likelihood of such an action at least beyond a very general guess taking in general assumption, Not to mention the impact.

Anon have some pretty good system penetrators but simplistic one off systems like this if done right are considerably harder and potentially much more secure then more general or common production systems.

In this case even though ultimately I do not think it will succeed the DDOS is probably the more likely to have any impact, it is a simplistic attack but that is also a virtue.

EA has always been epic fail.

Well, I was going to buy spore, and was greatly considering buying Mass Effect, but now I think I'll just play Sins of a Solar Empire instead.

Don't worry, that's not necessarily a bad thing, Sins is an amazing game after all.

****! If they want to stop piracy, they should 1. Stop setting challenges for hackers to break just to see if they can (and they will...) and 2. stop selling $20 games for $60. Make it cheaper and fewer will pirate. Supply and demand economics.

As much as it pisses me off, I'll probably still buy Mass Effect and I'll definitely buy Spore. I'll just use a crack on it whenever that comes out.

On what basis is it "likely"?

Precedent? I was talking about local cracks on the authentication as the most likely first line pirate attempts.

EA is ready and we are confident there will be no server problems.
Now is this, or is this not, a direct challenge to hackers the world over to attack EA servers?

Could they have made it more enticing? I think not.

Precedent? I was talking about local cracks on the authentication as the most likely first line pirate attempts.

Sorry i agree in the case of a local hack I must have been tired and read it as an attack on the remote servers

It's actually becoming less hassle to get a pirated version of a game than to actually buy that game and go through all the authentication crap. Not exactly the best way to cut down on piracy.

Yep. I'll pirate it, but I won't buy it now. Which is a shame.

I bet when EA's servers go down from all the strain put on them, and they will go down, EA blames pirates by saying pirates are DOSing their servers to hurt legitimate customers because they are mad at EA for making the game unpiratable.

Now is this, or is this not, a direct challenge to hackers the world over to attack EA servers?

Could they have made it more enticing? I think not.

Not really ... at least it is not anything that stands out. Most server teams are fairly confident that their services will remain up.

Its possible that some "Hackers" will take exception to this but their is no real reason for it.

I think I may be one of those sad chums who does register it every ten days... Until the servers crash on day #10 at which point I'll throw my computer through a window... And eat Spore.

Provided they don't do this to Fallout everything will be fine :)

as a tech support worker...

I have only one comment on one section of the article.



BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Methinks they forgot which is the Fantasy and which is the Real Life concerning things like this...

That was my thought too. No server problems? I mean, anarchist political ideals becoming a reality is more likely.

That was my thought too. No server problems? I mean, anarchist political ideals becoming a reality is more likely.
That's why I'm betting they blame server problems on bitter pirates DOSing them.

That's why I'm betting they blame server problems on bitter pirates DOSing them.

You'll probably win that bet easily.

Hmph, they think the entire world has a stable, reliable internet connection and the time to update the game every ten days. Haha. Let's see who will lose.

EA master of selling the same game over and over as new just because a shirt changed colors.





But I will probably buy spore anyway T_T

Hmph, they think the entire world has a stable, reliable internet connection and the time to update the game every ten days. Haha. Let's see who will lose.

Do you really think a large portion of a PC gaming demographic is without internet for 10 days in a row?

At least enough to hurt them in the pocket book in comparison to their planed increase in sales (IF this actually deters pirates)?

Do you really think a large portion of a PC gaming demographic is without internet for 10 days in a row?

At least enough to hurt them in the pocket book in comparison to their planed increase in sales (IF this actually deters pirates)?

Hardly anyone who games is without Internet. Otherwise, MMORPGs wouldn't have any market at all.

Personally, I think multiplayer games are the way to go - you can prevent piracy (you have to log on to a server which will validate you've paid), and it's unobtrusive (you know you have to pay to play).

Oh my god, people are trying to protect their intellectual property! Those bastards

The one thing I find really amusing by this little winge is that people will protest requiring an internet connection to play by downloading the game.

Methinks people capable of downloading multiple gig ISO files should have little issues with some online validation. The little rant about how it's so unfair and draconian to require an internet connection will lead you to download the game off the internet suggests to me less of some motivated stand, and more of an attempt to justify their own theft as a "statement"

Oh my god, people are trying to protect their intellectual property! Those bastards
Oh sure, only they're doing it in a manner that threatens to kill the fun of the game. This would be a reason for me not to buy a game.

Oh sure, only they're doing it in a manner that threatens to kill the fun of the game.

by having a passive registration run through your internet connection which you obviously have?

Do you really think a large portion of a PC gaming demographic is without internet for 10 days in a row?

At least enough to hurt them in the pocket book in comparison to their planed increase in sales (IF this actually deters pirates)?
Overall, no. But for example, if I do not have (a reliable) internet connection and I want to play some EA games, might as well eschew buying and playing their game altogether, because it just has gotten more expensive (buying the stuff AND paying for the internet) It may hamper their expansion outside of the EA fanatics base (or those without connections)... that is, if the new stuff did actually deter pirates.

I play EA games that do not require an internet connection (the Sims 2 and Sim City 4) and it would be extremely annoying if they would now require for me to update every ten days. For one, even if I do have a (relatively) stable connection, I might not have the time to update it every ten days.

Sure, they might not have server problems (something I doubt, they sad the Titanic couldn't sink as well) but people at home sure cán have problems. Bassicly, if you don't have access to the internet for longer then 10 days, even though you bought the game legally, you're fucked. Way to go EA...way to go...
PS: I still look forward to Spore, a lót.

Overall, no. But for example, if I do not have (a reliable) internet connection and I want to play some EA games, might as well eschew buying and playing their game altogether, because it just has gotten more expensive (buying the stuff AND paying for the internet) It may hamper their expansion outside of the EA fanatics base (or those without connections)... that is, if the new stuff did actually deter pirates.

I play EA games that do not require an internet connection (the Sims 2 and Sim City 4) and it would be extremely annoying if they would now require for me to update every ten days. For one, even if I do have a (relatively) stable connection, I might not have the time to update it every ten days.

I don't think you HAVE to update every ten games. But the game will "lock out" after 10, rendering you unable to play until you do. However, in my understanding, it will update automatically and passively whenever you run the game, as long as you have an internet connection. It's not like you have to DO anything other than press play, and be able to connect to the internet once every 10 days.

The one thing I find really amusing by this little winge is that people will protest requiring an internet connection to play by downloading the game.

Methinks people capable of downloading multiple gig ISO files should have little issues with some online validation. The little rant about how it's so unfair and draconian to require an internet connection will lead you to download the game off the internet suggests to me less of some motivated stand, and more of an attempt to justify their own theft as a "statement"

The problem is if your internet goes down for some odd reason, you cant play the game that you PAID for. Why should I have to have the internet to play a single player game? oh right it is the pirates' fault EA is making playing a game more of a hassle then it has to be.


I like sins of a solar empire, I don't even need the disk in the drive to play.

Oh my god, people are trying to protect their intellectual property! Those bastards

Property is theft.

The problem is if your internet goes down for some odd reason,

For 10 days? Now, I admit, there's a chance of that, and it's highly annoying if they don't provide some other method, but on the other hand, I don't think this is the huge draconian evilness that others think it is.

I don't think you HAVE to update every ten games. But the game will "lock out" after 10, rendering you unable to play until you do. However, in my understanding, it will update automatically and passively whenever you run the game, as long as you have an internet connection. It's not like you have to DO anything other than press play, and be able to connect to the internet once every 10 days.
This.
The problem is if your internet goes down for some odd reason, you cant play the game that you PAID for. Why should I have to have the internet to play a single player game?
I understand, perhaps it's a little hard to think of areas in your country that has no internet connection. Also not everybody can get to an internet connection. I used to shuffle my time between three places, one had a great broadband connection, the other two no connection at all. So I can sometimes run up to three months without internet... :eek:

Property is theft.

I just love it when Andaras appropriates stuff from Anarchism.

Especially given his view on the matter

For 10 days? Now, I admit, there's a chance of that, and it's highly annoying if they don't provide some other method, but on the other hand, I don't think this is the huge draconian evilness that others think it is.

I is possible for it to be otherwise.

Say you install game. All fine. Play for 9 nine days (or whatever). 10th day, time for reactivation. Damn, no internet...

Just saying that it isn't an inconceivable scenario

It's mostly about the hassle,

Paying for a legit game used to give you the satisfaction of playing without trouble. When a legit game give you more hassle than a copy, your begging for piracy. Especially when your EA.

I is possible for it to be otherwise.

Say you install game. All fine. Play for 9 nine days (or whatever). 10th day, time for reactivation. Damn, no internet...

Just saying that it isn't an inconceivable scenario

Except it wouldn't work like that. You don't need to register "every 10 days".

EVERY TIME you play the game, EVERY time you run the exe, as long as you have an internet connection, so it's not like you play for 9 days then have to register. If you've played for 9 days, you registered every time, as long as you have a connection

by having a passive registration run through your internet connection which you obviously have?I know this may sound strange, but I don't have an internet connection. At least not one I can play on.

Overall, no. But for example, if I do not have (a reliable) internet connection and I want to play some EA games, might as well eschew buying and playing their game altogether, because it just has gotten more expensive (buying the stuff AND paying for the internet) It may hamper their expansion outside of the EA fanatics base (or those without connections)... that is, if the new stuff did actually deter pirates.

I play EA games that do not require an internet connection (the Sims 2 and Sim City 4) and it would be extremely annoying if they would now require for me to update every ten days. For one, even if I do have a (relatively) stable connection, I might not have the time to update it every ten days.
Doubfull it is an active "update" it will register itself at point of connection ... there will be no need for you to do anything other then play the game

Sure, they might not have server problems (something I doubt, they sad the Titanic couldn't sink as well) but people at home sure cán have problems. Bassicly, if you don't have access to the internet for longer then 10 days, even though you bought the game legally, you're fucked. Way to go EA...way to go...
PS: I still look forward to Spore, a lót.
Unlike your titanic analogy a failure of the systems can usually be revived in a few hours worth of work

Theoredically only a small portion would be at the end of their 10 day period and would have to wait a few hours for it to come back up but it would be a relitivly small percentage of people

I is possible for it to be otherwise.

Say you install game. All fine. Play for 9 nine days (or whatever). 10th day, time for reactivation. Damn, no internet...

Just saying that it isn't an inconceivable scenario

It updates each time you play ... you would have to have a 10 day consecutive outage (unless you have not played it in 10 days)

I play games on a pc that is not connected to the internet; partly so it doesn't become really slow because of stupid Microsoft updates, partly to keep it secure and free of viruses and spyware without masses of software to do that.

Because of this I will not buy any game that requires an internet connection - and I get very annoyed when Amazon don't tell you one is needed. That said I don't agree with piracy so I would not get a pirated version.

I know this may sound strange, but I don't have an internet connection. At least not one I can play on.
None at home or are you talking performance? as a registration would be minimal traffic you would not be "playing" over the connection

None at home or are you talking performance? as a registration would be minimal traffic you would not be "playing" over the connectionAt the moment, neither one at home nor one that I can install games onto. Other than that, none at home.

I play games on a pc that is not connected to the internet; partly so it doesn't become really slow because of stupid Microsoft updates, partly to keep it secure and free of viruses and spyware without masses of software to do that.

Because of this I will not buy any game that requires an internet connection - and I get very annoyed when Amazon don't tell you one is needed. That said I don't agree with piracy so I would not get a pirated version.

1) Microsoft updates can be turned off (though not recomended) and is little if any concern for actual system performance problems after installation.

2) Some smarts in browsing and patching very little if anything needs to have to be done in part of virus or spyware infection if you are running such a fine line on system performance.

At the moment, neither one at home nor one that I can install games onto. Other than that, none at home.

It does suck and personally i dont agree with it but for the most part it is the minority of the game market in a simmilar situation

If it indeed does have even a small impact on piracy it may be enough from a busniess point of view to make it worth wile

Personally more then the technical challanges of these situations I find it more likley that they will LOOSE money because of loss of brand loyalty more then technical problems

1) Microsoft updates can be turned off (though not recomended) and is little if any concern for actual system performance problems after installation.

2) Some smarts in browsing and patching very little if anything needs to have to be done in part of virus or spyware infection if you are running such a fine line on system performance.

I have things set up the way I want and everything I use works, so I am not in need of patches or updating. Like Laerod I don't actually have an internet connection at home anyway. I only tend to update when I have a new bit of software that needs more up to date components.

Property is theft.
Ignorance is Truth, etc...

SecuROM, StarForce... two names of many copy protection options that I can and will live without. Starforce has caused me problems (it interfered with my hardware and caused my power supply on my older computer to die), and the prior is equally as punitive. These and other protective measures are the company punishing users who try and do the right thing. I used to like Maxis, but EA ruined Maxis and the Sims.

I was going to buy Spore, but no, not now. I am sick of being punished for not breaking the law.

Reminds me of when EA put "Live Advertising" and "Semi-Root Kits" into BF2142..

I have things set up the way I want and everything I use works, so I am not in need of patches or updating. Like Laerod I don't actually have an internet connection at home anyway. I only tend to update when I have a new bit of software that needs more up to date components.

If thats all you expect out of it I guess ... I persoanlly have a requirement for more functionality but thats me

I still can't believe that EA bought Bioware.

The list of quality developers grows thin...
... They didn't just buy them and then grind them up in a massive Blender of Intellectual Destruction or something, you know that, right?

"Good" and "bought out all their competitors" arn't the same thing.
They've earnt their money over the years by releasing high quality products. Fine, with FIFA et al, it's a high quality product over... and over... and over again. But the money didn't just magically appear in their account.
Or option B: Completely mediocre. Answers on a postcard.
Name as consistently a good publisher as EA, then. Hint : There are none.

THQ's games are fucking always filled with bugs until the 32nd patch, by which time the game is seven years old and inferior to its contemporaries, Ubisoft... aye... Blizzard are now with Activision, who alternate between pretty good and pretty terrible games with somewhat alarming regularity.

WoW is spiffing and all. Battlezone (1 and 2) was OK, if slightly rubbish (disagree and you're wrong, it was a pure mento tank rush affair and little more). Shrek : Ogres and Dronkeys is nothing more than an abomination.

It does suck and personally i dont agree with it but for the most part it is the minority of the game market in a simmilar situation


So it's okay to discriminate against minorities now? Cool!

But seriously, EA games tend to be mostly singleplayer; A much higher proportion of 'non - multiplayer' gamers will, logically, be more likely not to have an internet connection.

So it's okay to discriminate against minorities now? Cool!

I know, what the fuck? It's already bad enough that things like xbox 360 games can only be played by people with an xbox 360.

How fucking discriminatory. And seriously. What's with game companies requiring things like "ram" and "graphics cards?" I want to play Bioshock on my Commodore 64. It's discriminatory that they won't let me!

But seriously, EA games tend to be mostly singleplayer; A much higher proportion of 'non - multiplayer' gamers will, logically, be more likely not to have an internet connection.
Proof for either of these statements?

Proof for either of these statements?

I think common sense should dictate that those who play multiplayer games almost certainly have an online connection whereas those who do not do not necessarily so.

I think common sense should dictate that those who play multiplayer games almost certainly have an online connection whereas those who do not do not necessarily so.
61% of households in the UK had an internet connection in 2007 (says the National Statistics Office). If people are going to be gaming at all, it's pretty likely they'll have a connection. Aye, that's an assumption too, but there we go.

What I really wanted proof of, though, is that EA's games 'tend to be single-player'. Just from browsing their website, I'm not so sure about that.

Name as consistently a good publisher as EA, then. Hint : There are none.
Yeah, EA took over 90% of them because they made better games.

Blizzard, Bioware, Valve, 2K Games, Rockstar, Bethesda, etc.

EA has been taking over all of its competitors. EA sucks. EA has always sucked. Just because they have no competition in an area and beat a dead horse releasing sports series doesn't mean they release good games. They probably have no competition because they bought them out.

61% of households in the UK had an internet connection in 2007 (says the National Statistics Office). If people are going to be gaming at all, it's pretty likely they'll have a connection. Aye, that's an assumption too, but there we go.

What I really wanted proof of, though, is that EA's games 'tend to be single-player'. Just from browsing their website, I'm not so sure about that.

I think most, if not all of EA games...well....games are single player with multiplayer options. Options, yes, but no internet required to play. The only actual "online only" games are the MMOs, Everquest, Wow, Vanguard, Eve Online and the like, and, to my knowledge, EA doesn't make any of them.

So, and again to my knowledge, no internet connection is required to play most, if all of EA games. Certainly internet enables certain online multiplayer options, and in many cases, like the sports games, the options may be more worthwhile than the single player play modes, but the game can be played alone, unlike say, WoW or Team Fortress which has no stand alone single player offline option

Yeah, EA took over 90% of them because they made better games.

Blizzard, Bioware, Valve, 2K Games, Rockstar, Bethesda, etc.
And as I stated, that's because they made their money on extremely good products early in the 1990s and have been laughing since.
EA has been taking over all of its competitors.
So has Starbucks. Suck it up, they're only going to succeed even more in the future.
EA sucks. EA has always sucked.
FIFA has been great from 1993 onwards, that's why so many people have bought it. MULE was very excellent for its time. The Need for Speed series is also very good, although the best was probably the as-yet unequalled Porsche one, and The Sims is a very fine product indeed.

If you disagree with this, apart from maybe MULE which might not be to your tastes, you're just wrong.
Just because they have no competition in an area and beat a dead horse releasing sports series doesn't mean they release good games.
Sports sims are a much, much less dead horse to repeatedly beat than Mario or Final Fantasy, the jeux de choix for Nintendo and Sony respectively.

You can only go so far with sports games, and thankfully EA are sticking to sports with them. Unlike Mario, which has now done platforming, RPG gaming, err, Super Smash Brothers, sports, and oh so much more. Which is ludicrous. Final Fantasy spawned a Tamagochi type affair on the PC, as well as an MMO.
They probably have no competition because they bought them out.
Yep, after making Much Loot from their good games. Hurrah for the capitalist market system and all.

So it's okay to discriminate against minorities now? Cool!
Snip
When the fuck did system requirements become a qualification of "discrimination"

And as I stated, that's because they made their money on extremely good products early in the 1990s and have been laughing since.

So has Starbucks. Suck it up, they're only going to succeed even more in the future.

Is a point isn't it? If EA suks so damned much how are they buying up all these other competators? How are they making money on crappy games?

The only actual "online only" games are the MMOs, Everquest, Wow, Vanguard, Eve Online and the like, and, to my knowledge, EA doesn't make any of them.
Dark Age of Camelot, which is quite good, and Warhammer Online, which will probably be out in 2009 (projected 2008, but Oh The Delays) and, of course, Ultima Online.

So there we go.

Is a point isn't it? If EA suks so damned much how are they buying up all these other competators? How are they making money on crappy games?

Well, not to say that EA is the worst company ever, but they can afford higher market saturation and are more able to, for lack of a better term, force their games at gamers. They definitely have much less incentive to produce quality games.

Well, not to say that EA is the worst company ever, but they can afford higher market saturation and are more able to, for lack of a better term, force their games at gamers. They definitely have much less incentive to produce quality games.

but that's the point, if the games are bad, why do gamers buy them thus enabling EA to have such vast assets to do that?

Dark Age of Camelot, which is quite good, and Warhammer Online, which will probably be out in 2009 (projected 2008, but Oh The Delays) and, of course, Ultima Online.

So there we go.

those are EA? Well blow me down...

Still, 3 games outta how many?

Well, not to say that EA is the worst company ever, but they can afford higher market saturation and are more able to, for lack of a better term, force their games at gamers. They definitely have much less incentive to produce quality games.
And yet Metacritic rates EA as the second-best games publisher after Nintendo, at an average of 72 points per game.

Keep in mind that they have very little fanboyism for any one of their games, unlike Nintendo with anything involving Mario, Sony with MGS, Final Fantasy etc. and Microsoft with Halo, and you can see that their games are Pretty Good Overall.

those are EA?
EA Mythic, aye.
Still, 3 games outta how many?
How many significant MMOs are there really?

- WoW (massive market share, I'd imagine that Warhammer Online will filch a lot of this, though)
- Everquest + EQ2 (do people still play this?)
- City of Heroes/Villains (aye, fair doos)
- Lineage + L2 (massive market share)
- Eve Online (still strong).
- Second Life (aye, whatever)

Then the Star Wars one just killed itself in the face, see also Planetside (*sigh*). Meridan is no longer really played.

And then the rest of the MMO Market is just such utter pish that only Korea and the Tiger Economies are interested in.

EA Mythic, aye.

How many significant MMOs are there really?


More like I meant of EA's total catalogue, 3 games are "online only", 3 games out of how many they've made?

More like I meant of EA's total catalogue, 3 games are "online only", 3 games out of how many they've made?
98 trillion at the last count. MMOs are not really EA's thing. Yet.

98 trillion at the last count. MMOs are not really EA's thing. Yet.

Then why'd you ask this?

What I really wanted proof of, though, is that EA's games 'tend to be single-player'. Just from browsing their website, I'm not so sure about that.

Then why'd you ask this?
How many of their games are single-player only?

Doesn't look to be many.

How many of their games are single-player only?

Doesn't look to be many.

oh, well, I think in the context of the discussion I think he meant less "single player" only but rather "not online exclusive"

and The Sims is a very fine product indeed.

The Sims is a Maxis product and EA have been beating that dead horse ever since acquiring them.

Except it wouldn't work like that. You don't need to register "every 10 days".

EVERY TIME you play the game, EVERY time you run the exe, as long as you have an internet connection, so it's not like you play for 9 days then have to register. If you've played for 9 days, you registered every time, as long as you have a connection

It updates each time you play ... you would have to have a 10 day consecutive outage (unless you have not played it in 10 days)


Aah right, apologies. Just playing devil's advocate (without bothering to do the preliminary reading obviously...).

Though I do frequently (c. once a month) have problems with my internets. Which could be annoying if this idea becomes de rigeur in the industry (though it would be an acceptable trade off if it meant I didn't have to use the CD every time)

The Sims is a Maxis product and EA have been beating that dead horse ever since acquiring them.
No, The Sims has always been an EA product, and it's hardly a dead horse.

The defenders of EA here completely fail to realize why so many are against this type of protection. It's not because we are sure it'll fail when we try to play the game a few months from now. We all know it probably will. It's because we don't like the idea of having to ask EA nicely before using our own property every single time we want to do it. We don't want to be at their mercy, we don't like the idea of our game turning into a coaster should EA fuck something up, no matter how unlikely this is, and even if most people are going to play these games for a couple of weeks and then never touch it again, we would like to be able to play the game whenever we want and for as long as we want. Will EAs authentication servers be around in 5 years? 10?

To me, the most tragic thing is that despite creating more information than ever before, this period of history will be a black hole of emptiness compared to what is should be because nearly all of this information will be lost. For one, we lack reliable ways to store the data for long periods of time, but another big reason we've actually made it illegal to preserve most information and culture and that the creators of it are actively trying to prevent it from being saved for the future.

For one, we lack reliable ways to store the data for long periods of time,
Which is wrong, but that's another topic.

No, The Sims has always been an EA product, and it's hardly a dead horse.

Well depends on how you define. "The Sims" is EA. "Sims games" starting with "Sim City" began with Maxis and have belonged to EA since they acquired Maxis in 1997.

So "The Sims" is and always has been EA. The "Sims" franchise started with Maxis, and has been the property of EA since '97

Well depends on how you define. "The Sims" is EA. "Sims games" starting with "Sim City" began with Maxis and have belonged to EA since they acquired Maxis in 1997.

So "The Sims" is and always has been EA. The "Sims" franchise started with Maxis, and has been the property of EA since '97
Yep. They said "The Sims". So there we go.

The thing I dislike about this kind of thing (equally with DRM-type things), is the amount of control the company is maintaining over you and the game you paid for. Valve's Steam is similar but has always had an offline mode and will not completely lock you out of a game.

Basically, people do not trust companies and want the freedom to enjoy a product as they see fit, not when they are allowed to. Clearly this step is not that far, but it is an increasing trend in game products, and, indeed, government laws.

There goes any plans for me to buy Spore.

Also, there goes any plans for me to consider reverting my loyalties from PES to FIFA, as I was reconsidering giving how much FIFA's improved. Not a cat in hell's chance now, I'd rather give Konami my money. Unless they've pulled off something even worse...?

There goes any plans for me to buy Spore.
It's going to suck regardless of the publisher. Think Black&White levels of utter, utter dross for most of the game, mixed with a couple of nice touches.

You have Spore.

It's going to suck regardless of the publisher. Think Black&White levels of utter, utter dross for most of the game, mixed with a couple of nice touches.

You have Spore.

Please explain the word "dross" for us non-Brits please. Also, I've never played B&W, so why do you think it's bad?

Edit: Oh, and spore looks nice to me.

Wtf! ...

Epic fail.

I will still never forgive them for the utter raping that they did to westwood.

Can't someone do like they did with the bells and forcefully break them up PLEASE!

Because if not the Computer gaming industry is going to die when everyone flees to consoles due to over protection.

I will still never forgive them for the utter raping that they did to westwood.

Can't someone do like they did with the bells and forcefully break them up PLEASE!

Yeah, EA is inching towards Antitrust territory.

Scenario:
I get Spore. Dear Lord I'm SO excited to play it! I rush to my house, and put it in. I wait hours upon hours to get it installed. During this time I create an exact replica of the eiffal tower on a 20:1 scale. It finally lets me play it. I rejoice in Spore's glory, and I play it for 9 days (Not straight of course). I go to play it on the tenth day and, lo and behold, I cannot because I don't have an internet connection! I of course, break down crying.

Seriously, At times I've went 5 months before without the internet because we couldn't pay it. It was a horrible time, but I survived (Barely) Nowadays I wouldn't because I learned the joy that is NSG, but still :p.

Please explain the word "dross" for us non-Brits please. Also, I've never played B&W, so why do you think it's bad?

Edit: Oh, and spore looks nice to me.
"Dross" = rubbish.

B&W wasn't particularly good because... well... it wasn't. What more is there to say? Every single aspect of it was underdeveloped, there were always restraints of some kind on the use of your beastie, and managing your towns was such a pain in the arse. Whilst it does get Super Credit for letting me have a 200-ft tall cow, it loses it all for being not that fun to actually play.

I think the problem with Spore is that it doesn't look to have much compelling gameplay to it. It's going to be another Black & White.

B&W wasn't particularly good because... well... it wasn't. What more is there to say? Every single aspect of it was underdeveloped, there were always restraints of some kind on the use of your beastie, and managing your towns was such a pain in the arse. Whilst it does get Super Credit for letting me have a 200-ft tall cow, it loses it all for being not that fun to actually play.

The game was awesome. It was just geared to a VERy specific audience, like Dwarf Fortress without the adventurer mode.

The game was awesome. It was just geared to a VERy specific audience, like Dwarf Fortress without the adventurer mode.
It was rubbish. The game artificially took control of your beast from you on most of the missions, which left you essentially playing Populus with less interesting management of your settlements. This is a Not Good Thing.

It was rubbish. The game artificially took control of your beast from you on most of the missions, which left you essentially playing Populus with less interesting management of your settlements. This is a Not Good Thing.
It was Brilliance! The game let you interact with your beast without having to constantly babysit it! The belief system was something that they should've kept, and the population manage ment was more then interesting with the effect of your creature upon the population and the hundreds of miracles!

It was Brilliance! The game let you interact with your beast without having to constantly babysit it!

"interacting" with something while not having control is called watching the computer play the game for you

Square Enix? Rockstar? Nintendo? Capcom?

Seriously...expand your horizons outside of Madden and Halo

For anyone who hasn't done this yet, and is a DS owner: GET The World Ends With You. AWESOME, AWESOME game.

"interacting" with something while not having control is called watching the computer play the game for you
You HAD control, but you didn't have to micromanage it. The Sims was good, and the sims is very similar to what the creature does. They don't need to be micromanaged, but they CAN be controled.

"interacting" with something while not having control is called watching the computer play the game for you

Like playing FF12.

It was Brilliance!
No, it wasn't. Completely overrated by the press who were interested in getting something less shite than Dungeon Keeper 2 from Peter Molyneux, their previous poster boy, and seemingly spent very little time actually playing the game.
The game let you interact with your beast without having to constantly babysit it!
No, in every single mission, you only had your beastie for about half of it, and had to look after the bastard all the time unless you wanted it to blunder into enemy territory and be generally unhelpful. Seeing as you don't even get your beast for much of mission two, the first time you can teach it about enemy villages, you can't teach it much about when to stay away, mission 3 is mainly damage control by your beast with water spells etc., and for the other missions it's either constantly getting set on fire by your enemy or simply not under your control.
The belief system was something that they should've kept
They did...
and the population manage ment was more then interesting with the effect of your creature upon the population and the hundreds of miracles!
There weren't hundreds of miracles, there were about 3 useful ones - fireball, water and 'make grain' to impress enemies a bit. Wood was very easy to come by, and the other damage spells were superfluous when you can just set the enemy beastie on fire or throw rocks at it when your creature isn't around. Heal was somewhat handy for patching up villages you'd smacked up with rocks, but that's about it.

Did you actually play the game, or are you just basing this on reviews?

You HAD control, but you didn't have to micromanage it. The Sims was good, and the sims is very similar to what the creature does. They don't need to be micromanaged, but they CAN be controled.
I said the Sims was good. The Sims was good because it was quite quaint and funny, and let me build all sorts of houses and play hell with people.

Your creature on B&W was a pain in the arse to teach, often sat about being unhelpful on the overly cramped maps and had to be gestured to fight properly.

You also didn't control them for an overlarge portion of the game. That's like The Sims not letting you control them at all for an essentially arbritrary amount of hours, seemingly just to lengthen itself.

No, it wasn't. Completely overrated by the press who were interested in getting something less shite than Dungeon Keeper 2 from Peter Molyneux, their previous poster boy, and seemingly spent very little time actually playing the game.

It wasn't that well recieved.
No, in every single mission, you only had your beastie for about half of it, and had to look after the bastard all the time unless you wanted it to blunder into enemy territory and be generally unhelpful. Seeing as you don't even get your beast for much of mission two, the first time you can teach it about enemy villages, you can't teach it much about when to stay away, mission 3 is mainly damage control by your beast with water spells etc., and for the other missions it's either constantly getting set on fire by your enemy or simply not under your control.

Not if you made it a good little beast, you evil, evil person.
:D
They did...

Not in B&W 2.
There weren't hundreds of miracles, there were about 3 useful ones - fireball, water and 'make grain' to impress enemies a bit. Wood was very easy to come by, and the other damage spells were superfluous when you can just set the enemy beastie on fire or throw rocks at it when your creature isn't around. Heal was somewhat handy for patching up villages you'd smacked up with rocks, but that's about it.

Did you actually play the game, or are you just basing this on reviews?
There was fireball, the creation miracles (About 6-7) several culture specific miracles, healing miracles teleportation miracles- Did YOU actually play the game? I have the both games and their expansion packs, so there.

It wasn't that well recieved.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914356.asp

43 media outlets gave it roughly 90% on average. Very, very well recieved by the press.
Not if you made it a good little beast, you evil, evil person.
:D
I did. That's probably why it didn't know what to do.
Not in B&W 2.
Which was even worse. "Oh you've built some walls, now is a really good time to attack you" says the enemy. Too many bloody triggers.
There was fireball, the creation miracles (About 6-7) several culture specific miracles, healing miracles teleportation miracles
And only about 3 of them were of any use...
Did YOU actually play the game? I have the both games and their expansion packs, so there.
Of course I played the games, or I wouldn't be commenting on them so accurately, would I?

Damn. I'm glad Steam made me get broadband for my gaming computer now.

EA would be alright, if it weren't for the fact that, if a reasonably successful game came out you'd get forty expansion packs for it all of which are shite before getting an army of Sequels.

I seriously don't think I need to spend forty pounds to update all the footballer's hairstyles and tatoos.

Besides, I doubt it is neccessary to validate the game every 10 days.

I'd say the best game development companies are Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and Bethesda.

Bungie has a chance to be awesome now that they're independent again. I want to see a complete remake of Marathon with better-than-Halo engine, graphics, and environment.

EA has lost its magic. They make a few good games, but nothing really spectacular enough to be worth the hassle of owning it honestly. When it's easier to run a pirated copy of your game, you've destroyed your game company. That's what they've done.

*edit* Square Enix has been doing the same thing for 20 years, and they're good at what they do, but I see very little actual gameplay innovation from them. That said, I REALLY liked FF 7, 9, and 12 along with the classic Nintendo games. What they do best is make a pretty game. I just wish they could do something besides the basic JRPG. *ducks for cover as the Final Fantasy Fanboy Club attacks me for heresy*

I bent over for 2142...gave up on EA when they rammed me then...they never call you the next day either, but I suppose this way they go for it every 10 days so its like having a booty call from your video game.

*edit* Square Enix has been doing the same thing for 20 years, and they're good at what they do, but I see very little actual gameplay innovation from them. That said, I REALLY liked FF 7, 9, and 12 along with the classic Nintendo games. What they do best is make a pretty game. I just wish they could do something besides the basic JRPG. *ducks for cover as the Final Fantasy Fanboy Club attacks me for heresy*

What heresy? I can't think of any non-JRPGs that they have done tbh.


unless you count Action RPGs as non-JRPG. In which case I suggest Brave Fencer Musashi....which was made about 10(?) years ago.

What heresy? I can't think of any non-JRPGs that they have done tbh.


unless you count Action RPGs as non-JRPG. In which case I suggest Brave Fencer Musashi....which was made about 10(?) years ago.

I do have a square game that's different from their usual fare, come to think of it. Vagrant Story might have been the title. It's a PS1 game that I never really got into.

I'd say the best game development companies are Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and Bethesda.

Bungie has a chance to be awesome now that they're independent again. I want to see a complete remake of Marathon with better-than-Halo engine, graphics, and environment.

EA has lost its magic. They make a few good games, but nothing really spectacular enough to be worth the hassle of owning it honestly. When it's easier to run a pirated copy of your game, you've destroyed your game company. That's what they've done.

*edit* Square Enix has been doing the same thing for 20 years, and they're good at what they do, but I see very little actual gameplay innovation from them. That said, I REALLY liked FF 7, 9, and 12 along with the classic Nintendo games. What they do best is make a pretty game. I just wish they could do something besides the basic JRPG. *ducks for cover as the Final Fantasy Fanboy Club attacks me for heresy*

Again: The World Ends With You. One of the most innovative combat systems I've ever seen in a video game. Simultaneous real time dual screen combat, requiring you to manage the fight on the bottom screen with the stylus and the fight on the top screen with the D-pad (or ABXY for us lefties). Each of the three partners the main character has has a completely different combat structure and style for their pulling off two-screen combos, and there are at least 10 or so different attack types for the bottom screen, from tapping on enemies to dragging items around to slam into them, to slashing them, to blowing into the microphone.
Add to that a refreshingly modern setting, an innovative equipment system, skill point gain while the DS is OFF, and an engaging storyline, and it's one of the best games I've played since FF6.

Add to that that Kingdom Hearts had very interesting gameplay to it, especially once you got heavily into (and really good at) the aerial combat system, especially in KH2.

Personally, I think FF9 sucked, and while FF12 had an awesome story, I found the combat system too automated to really enjoy. FF7 gets far, FAR too much credit than it deserves, especially compared to FF6.

Square has also put out amazing games like Bahamut Lagoon for the SNES, Valkyrie Profile for the PS, the Front Mission series, Dragon Quest, and Star fricking Ocean, each with a combat system that is pretty much (with the exception of Dragon Quest) unique to that line of games.

/fanboy dissertation

Property is theft.
Theft of what? Property?

Theft of what? Property?

You resurrected this thread for that! :eek: [/incredulity]

****! If they want to stop piracy, they should 1. Stop setting challenges for hackers to break just to see if they can (and they will...) and 2. stop selling $20 games for $60. Make it cheaper and fewer will pirate. Supply and demand economics.

Learn economics. Supply and demand are independent of one another.

It works like this: the greater the price of a product (not counting tax, producers hate that), the greater the quantity producers will supply of it.

And now some thoughts from Gabe and Tycho (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/5/9/)

The issue can be carried on in this thread, if anybody is interested:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=556393

Seems like EA either wised up, or it was a publicity stunt the whole time.