Will the DRM on FM 09 stop you from buying the game?

[Dirky Diggler]

Sorry, but it does not need someone with a University degree to realize there will be a huge user backlash against all the stuff that's been implemented. Things like this should of been discussed before hand.

Opt In/Opt Out is a system that really a chimp could of thought off and that would of killed off a lot of debate. I'm so angry with Sega and SI.

I dont think any chimps work at SI or Sega though? For one its illegal to keep chimps and another thing when they hit puberty they become very aggressive so its not a good idea to have them around breakable things like PCs, debuggers and gold master discs!

Ive got a spare stressball if you want?

[Muzchap]

Its good you guys are being transparent now, i think transparency is the main issue with a lot of people over DRM, if the insight features had been announces when the original copy protection thread was made there would have been less whining, if someone would come out and tell us what the IGA entails then we wouldn't have to draw concussions from 2 lines in the EULA.

Im not averse to DRM and copy protection, im not against people installing stuff on my pc , i do however want to know the who what and where before i make my purchase though.

Hi Treble_yell - Yes, in all fairness - it was an oversight on our point. If somebody could start a thread on IGA, that would be great - unfortunately, I'm not really qualified to discuss it.

I have to hold my hands up with the 'Insight' issue - I probably didn't make it clear enough to Miles exactly what it was going to do, as the main concern was getting the DRM right and ensuring it's fully patched out after 18 months. So to all readers, please can you not critiscise what Miles has done - I'm the person to blame for that, all I can do is offer you my apologies and the promise that I will try to resolve the problem.

I'm off for some dinner, but I'll pop back later tonight - so please do keep the questions coming

[JonPaulWild]

Hi Treble_yell - Yes, in all fairness - it was an oversight on our point. If somebody could start a thread on IGA, that would be great - unfortunately, I'm not really qualified to discuss it.

I have to hold my hands up with the 'Insight' issue - I probably didn't make it clear enough to Miles exactly what it was going to do, as the main concern was getting the DRM right and ensuring it's fully patched out after 18 months. So to all readers, please can you not critiscise what Miles has done - I'm the person to blame for that, all I can do is offer you my apologies and the promise that I will try to resolve the problem.

I'm off for some dinner, but I'll pop back later tonight - so please do keep the questions coming

Miles should of researched the 'Insight' issue himself and done some personal research. He doesn't code the game so I assume he has time to do research over the twelve months.

Why didn't anyone from Si realize that the IGA/DRM issue could cause a huge user backlash and talk to you guys about it - you're all on the same team so TALK. Both SI and Sega have been a joke in this situation.

[outlander]

Hi Outlander - I posted on the previous page 'exactly' what we collect. There is no such thing as 5 installs? Please go back and re-read Post 560 for clarification. I'm not in the habit of lying? All information will go to SI Games.

I think there is a localised 'Russian' version being produced as we speak - so please hold tight. (Can Marketing confirm?)

Pocha.

I know that it's not 5 installs and it's done to prevent giving the game to every your friend. As I said I see nothing wrong with it and understand such your move.

And any idea where can I read about a "Russian" version and look for it? Will it be a reatail version or steam?

[Matt ex SEGA]

I think there is a localised 'Russian' version being produced as we speak - so please hold tight. (Can Marketing confirm?)

Pocha.

Actually not - we're not able to release in Russia due to licensing issues. Apologies - we'd love to, but can't....

[Muzchap]

Miles should of researched the 'Insight' issue himself and done some personal research. He doesn't code the game so I assume he has time to do research over the twelve months.

Why didn't anyone from Si realize that the IGA/DRM issue could cause a huge user backlash and talk to you guys about it - you're all on the same team so TALK. Both SI and Sega have been a joke in this situation.

Hi JonPaul - I'm sorry but I have to draw the line at this kind of response. You have overstepped the mark. Miles works 18 hours a day, everyday, lives, breathes and is everything FM09.

I did not inform Miles of the requirment, therefore he had nothing to research.

Now I'm definitely in need of food - you've made me grumpy!

[Muzchap]

Actually not - we're not able to release in Russia due to licensing issues. Apologies - we'd love to, but can't....

Oops - sorry for that slip-up - I got confused with the Czech and Polish versions...

[JonPaulWild]

Hi JonPaul - I'm sorry but I have to draw the line at this kind of response. You have overstepped the mark. Miles works 18 hours a day, everyday, lives, breathes and is everything FM09.

I did not inform Miles of the requirment, therefore he had nothing to research.

Please do not make statements about situations you know nothing about. Yes you are entitled to an opinion, but as that opinion is not constructive in any shape or form, I would politely ask you to keep it to yourself.

Now I'm definitely in need of food - you've made me grumpy!

Scientists inform me of an event in the universe - I don't just sit there and listen to them I go read and research myself.

I hear a newsreader talk about an event on the news - I always prefer to research myself for full facts.

Sorry, but Miles should of done the same. Not just Miles but anyone who's a developer should do the same to be honest.

If I was Miles I would certainly want to research and know everyone about DRM\IGA if it's being implements into a product in which his team at Si have worked for over the lat twelve months or so.

[Selleckta]

Come on, dude. Give it a rest, eh? You've made your point, I think.

[JumbledSausage]

Scientists inform me of an event in the universe - I don't just sit there and listen to them I go read and research myself.

I hear a newsreader talk about an event on the news - I always prefer to research myself for full facts.

Sorry, but Miles should of done the same. Not just Miles but anyone who's a developer should do the same to be honest.

If I was Miles I would certainly want to research and know everyone about DRM\IGA if it's being implements into a product in which his team at Si have worked for over the lat twelve months or so.

In which case, what is the point of having people to do certain jobs? - Why have a development team if you, as the lead developer, don't trust them to do the work right? (Just a general example).

If Miles was not informed of something that needed research, but was thoroughly briefed (as I expect he was), then how can he be expected to figure out that some more information was needed?

[JonPaulWild]

In which case, what is the point of having people to do certain jobs? - Why have a development team if you, as the lead developer, don't trust them to do the work right? (Just a general example).

If Miles was not informed of something that needed research, but was thoroughly briefed (as I expect he was), then how can he be expected to figure out that some more information was needed?

Everyone needs oversight.

Obviously if that has been said is true than obviosuly Muzzy is in the wrong for not giving full disclousure. However, it's also the duty of the guy who seems to lead SI to make sure that everything is fine and dandy.

If I was in a similar situation I'd be doing the same - getting all the facts straight through research.

I'm sure Si trusted Eidos at one point....

[GillsMan]

Scientists inform me of an event in the universe - I don't just sit there and listen to them I go read and research myself.

I hear a newsreader talk about an event on the news - I always prefer to research myself for full facts.

Sorry, but Miles should of done the same. Not just Miles but anyone who's a developer should do the same to be honest.

If I was Miles I would certainly want to research and know everyone about DRM\IGA if it's being implements into a product in which his team at Si have worked for over the lat twelve months or so.

Wow, this has to have been one of the most open and honest explanations I've seen from a publisher, who admitted that they could have been more transparent from the outset, the correct person took ownership of that issue, they seem to have demonstrated a willingness to listen to customers and STILL you're not happy!! Some people just want the moon on a stick!

[Indi75]

Hi TeeWee.

Thank you for taking the time to read. The information collected is collected 'one-time' only, I've posted an example of the report we obtain - it's in no way personally identifiable to you. We do not collect or process any other information than what I published earlier.

Could you please give me a reason why you wouldn't want your anonymous machine specs to be collated for the purposes of helping with the development of the game? We did mull this over and considered it to be a useful exercise - I think we 'can' turn it off before release - so please put your arguments against here and I will hold the required discussions.

I can't say fairer than that?

If it helps give Sega and SI a snapshot of hardware in use that further helps development of the game I'm all in favour.

iTunes, Windows, Zune, Nero, OSX.... they ALL do it whether people realise it or not, this DRM bandwagon is nought short of trollling for many of these guys, and i'll bet good money half of them will be pirating it regardless of DRM.

[JonPaulWild]

Wow, this has to have been one of the most open and honest explanations I've seen from a publisher, who admitted that they could have been more transparent from the outset, the correct person took ownership of that issue, they seem to have demonstrated a willingness to listen to customers and STILL you're not happy!! Some people just want the moon on a stick!

This issue has generated much interest from people who post here and people who view the thead - look at the number of view. Yes, Sega have discussed this issuse more so than EA, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of the whole issue and how we got to this place.

I would have to say that Sega have been put into a corner and have had to do this PR exercise in an attempt to calm this situation down, but has highlighted certain issues between developer and publisher as well as showing how the whole thing has been handled seems like a shambles.

[Dirky Diggler]

Everyone needs oversight.

Obviously if that has been said is true than obviosuly Muzzy is in the wrong for not giving full disclousure. However, it's also the duty of the guy who seems to lead SI to make sure that everything is fine and dandy.

If I was in a similar situation I'd be doing the same - getting all the facts straight through research.

I'm sure Si trusted Eidos at one point....

No point in discussing it really, whats done is done, you dont know all the facts about how SI work, how many people do what, who should be doing what, so you cant even begin to say what they should or shouldnt have done

[GillsMan]

This issue has generated much interest from people who post here and people who view the thead - look at the number of view. Yes, Sega have discussed this issuse more so than EA, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of the whole issue and how we got to this place.

I would have to say that Sega have been put into a corner and have had to do this PR exercise in an attempt to calm this situation down, but has highlighted certain issues between developer and publisher as well as showing how the whole thing has been handled seems like a shambles.

I agree with Dirky. I also think you're not a million miles away from appearing like a troll tbh. If you think this has been shambolic, check out EA's handling of the backlash against Spore. Or 2K Games' handling of the backlash and problems people had with BioShock. Talk about closed-minded - those companies were terrible!

Look, you seem like a relatively intelligent person, judging by the clarity of your posts, but I think you're looking for an excuse, any excuse, to be angry and rant and rave. I understand that just because they're being open now, doesn't make everything 100% right, and you're still entitled to disagree with the protection and EULA agreements of course, but I think some credit has to be due for their openness. The fact that the guy responsible is even posting on a message forum is quite a good step - if only more companies did this! You won't get anywhere by sheer abuse, I think Murray has shown he is prepared to listen to people's concerns but, like anybody, I think he'll only listen to reasonable posts.

[Sweed]

This may be a silly question but how does STEAM fit into all of this? Or does it?

I get if I buy the dvd version I have to deal with the DRM by registering the game via phone, online, or STEAM.

But what about if I purchase from STEAM? Am I only dealing with STEAM's security measures?

[JonPaulWild]

I agree with Dirky. I also think you're not a million miles away from appearing like a troll tbh. If you think this has been shambolic, check out EA's handling of the backlash against Spore. Or 2K Games' handling of the backlash and problems people had with BioShock. Talk about closed-minded - those companies were terrible!

Look, you seem like a relatively intelligent person, judging by the clarity of your posts, but I think you're looking for an excuse, any excuse, to be angry and rant and rave. I understand that just because they're being open now, doesn't make everything 100% right, and you're still entitled to disagree with the protection and EULA agreements of course, but I think some credit has to be due for their openness. The fact that the guy responsible is even posting on a message forum is quite a good step - if only more companies did this! You won't get anywhere by sheer abuse, I think Murray has shown he is prepared to listen to people's concerns but, like anybody, I think he'll only listen to reasonable posts.

EA's handling / implementation of recent products has been terrible and far worst than SI. However, SI have always appeared to be an 'indie' type of developer making a different kind of game for a cult kind of audience. Now that they've gone down the path of this type of DRM and IGA then it really has changed everything.

I love the Command & Conquer games but due to two issues - a D3D error in C&C 3 that myself and many people got and many complained over at their forums, has as of yet, yet to be fixed. I have also not bought this due to the restrictive DRM it uses.

What is concerning me is that more and more developers / publishers are getting involved with this DRM / IGA and bringing up many questions and points as to how far developers / publishers can go. Also I feel it's fair as to why and how this DRM/IGA has been communicated to the consumers, how it's been handled and even as to SI's position in all of this.

I expect from EA games to be 'evil' with IGA\DRM as that's EA for you ( I just wont buy them) - I just wished SI wouldn't go down that route as I have enjoyed and respected the past work.

[GillsMan]

EA's handling / implementation of recent products has been terrible and far worst than SI. However, SI have always appeared to be an 'indie' type of developer making a different kind of game for a cult kind of audience. Now that they've gone down the path of this type of DRM and IGA then it really has changed everything.

I love the Command & Conquer games but due to two issues - a D3D error in C&C 3 that myself and many people got and many complained over at their forums, has as of yet, yet to be fixed. I have also not bought this due to the restrictive DRM it uses.

What is concerning me is that more and more developers / publishers are getting involved with this DRM / IGA and bringing up many questions and points as to how far developers / publishers can go. Also I feel it's fair as to why and how this DRM/IGA has been communicated to the consumers, how it's been handled and even as to SI's position in all of this.

I expect from EA games to be 'evil' with IGA\DRM as that's EA for you ( I just wont buy them) - I just wished SI wouldn't go down that route as I have enjoyed and respected the past work.

Your points are entirely reasonable. While I don't agree with the hysteria DRM is met with, I certainly don't think that DRM is particularly effective, and I think other business models need to be explored (including the seemingly equally controversial in-game advertising, making up the lost revenue in pirating). Personally, DRM is not a route I'd prefer to go down, but I do understand why they've introduced it. And, let's be honest here, it's not SecuROM which severely impacted the chances of legitimate buyers playing the game they'd bought even once!

This does seem to be one of the fairest DRM's available. I must reiterate that I'm not pro DRM at all, but I understand, from a business POV, why they've gone for it.

Finally, you're points aren't unreasonable. I just think you needed to be a bit more rational in your posts - particularly in continuing to have a go when it seemed we were getting open information from Sega. Just my opinion, mind!

[TeeWee]

Hi TeeWee.

Thank you for taking the time to read. The information collected is collected 'one-time' only, I've posted an example of the report we obtain - it's in no way personally identifiable to you. We do not collect or process any other information than what I published earlier.

Could you please give me a reason why you wouldn't want your anonymous machine specs to be collated for the purposes of helping with the development of the game? We did mull this over and considered it to be a useful exercise - I think we 'can' turn it off before release - so please put your arguments against here and I will hold the required discussions.

I can't say fairer than that?

Let me start by saying that I really appreciate the openness you're showing here. I read elsewhere you're going to do a post-mortem later on after release. As a potential customer, I'd say that your list in post 560 is very informative and you (SEGA/SI) should have realised, given current sentiment about DRM (Spore! ) that your scheme would elicit a strong response. Full disclosure would have, I think, taken away a lot of the FUD that's surrounding this current release and given you less grief than this botched communication strategy (I use botched because of the visible result on the forums)

Now, on to the collection of data. I must admit to a certain knee jerkiness that involves any application that collects data. No application has any business poking about my rig and phoning home about it, whether it's one-time only or permanently. I'd hope you're able to understand at least this first gut reaction.

It's worse when the application never tells you about it. This makes the affair stink and gives the impression that you'd rather not tell people it's happening at all. If you really think it's alright to collect this info, you should say so on install-time. EULA is not enough for me, because there's so much stuff in an EULA that it's easy to overlook this (yes, I know I should read them carefully, but they are often hard to read for the non-legally minded people anyway, defeating the purpose). A seperate checkbox with opt-out (or even better, opt-in) would be near-perfect.

As for a rational reason; I don't necessarily have one. If you'd present me with a voluntary questionairre about my rig for the express purpose of getting to know your customer base, I would not dismiss it a priori. It's just that an application is secretly collecting info I cannot check and sending it home automatically that gives me the creeps. And I have only your word for it that that's the only thing you're collecting*.

*: I'm using you in a general sense. In no way am I implying you're lying; the statement just seems to express my uneasiness about it.

[Kriss]

Let me start by saying that I really appreciate the openness you're showing here. I read elsewhere you're going to do a post-mortem later on after release. As a potential customer, I'd say that your list in post 560 is very informative and you (SEGA/SI) should have realised, given current sentiment about DRM (Spore! ) that your scheme would elicit a strong response. Full disclosure would have, I think, taken away a lot of the FUD that's surrounding this current release and given you less grief than this botched communication strategy (I use botched because of the visible result on the forums)

Now, on to the collection of data. I must admit to a certain knee jerkiness that involves any application that collects data. No application has any business poking about my rig and phoning home about it, whether it's one-time only or permanently. I'd hope you're able to understand at least this first gut reaction.

It's worse when the application never tells you about it. This makes the affair stink and gives the impression that you'd rather not tell people it's happening at all. If you really think it's alright to collect this info, you should say so on install-time. EULA is not enough for me, because there's so much stuff in an EULA that it's easy to overlook this (yes, I know I should read them carefully, but they are often hard to read for the non-legally minded people anyway, defeating the purpose). A seperate checkbox with opt-out (or even better, opt-in) would be near-perfect.

As for a rational reason; I don't necessarily have one. If you'd present me with a voluntary questionairre about my rig for the express purpose of getting to know your customer base, I would not dismiss it a priori. It's just that an application is secretly collecting info I cannot check and sending it home automatically that gives me the creeps. And I have only your word for it that that's the only thing you're collecting*.

*: I'm using you in a general sense. In no way am I implying you're lying; the statement just seems to express my uneasiness about it.

I don't think anybody could put it better, pre-emption is always the best way.

[MSCCG]

After i buy a CD it is my CD and you have not a saying on what i am going to do with it , when developers want to have a saying on things you legally own punish them with your wallet .

Who the hell are you to tell me on how many computers i am going to install MY game? i own 35 , now what?

Who the hell are you to gather information about my rig ?

Who the hell are you to dictate me what programs my firewall allows to pass ?

Who the hell are you to post "we allow" crap ? do i need your permission to use my property?

It isn't the design it is the ethics behind it , you are not going to have any control over the products i own , if you think you can do whatever you want you are dead wrong and your sales will be hammered even if you bring the pope to post in the forums.

What's next , DRM beds when you can only get on with your wife?

1. How fair do you think it is to install your game on 35 computers when you only pay for one? Like Microsoft Office for example. You can say it's for personal use, but I won't believe you.

2+3. Disconnect your internet, they have given you this option, which is morally acceptable.

4. NOT your property.

5. SI was quite ethically responsible in using this DRM.

If you want to make cliched and illogical complaints, how about you read this first:

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1026

this is Stardock's opinion, the company everybody agrees is the penultimate in treating gamers fairly.

And so there continues my crusade against poor arguments.

[Chris Waddle]

Chris Waddle - Please read POST 560 - you will not have an issue in that circumstance...

I would like to say many thanks for taking the time out to post on here and to try and alleviate issues which I have.

I have read post 560 and whilst I do appreciate your honesty on this matter, DRM is still present. I do not like the idea having to activate a game ie. Big brother is watching over me.

I have bought games for many a year now. I think I got my first computer back in 1981 (ZX81) and have seen many changes. The DRM issue is one that really angers me.

Of recent years my favourite game has been BF2 (when not playing FM). I have spent literally hundreds of hours playing this. This has to be the best value for money I have ever spent. When I heard that EA were releasing BF2142 I immediately ordered it. When I received it, I found out it included IGA amongst other things. I threw it straight into the bin without ever even installing it. I was incredibly angered that the game included it, but more so that I had to enable it, to be allowed to play the game. I am sorry, but I will not allow any publisher to dictate how I play my game.

Of recent, someone bought me a copy of Crysis Warhead as a thank you present. Thanks to DRM being included, I never installed it. This time I gave it to a charity shop.

The point of my long winded reply is that I don't care how open and honest you are about DRM (or if you are EA, underhanded and despicable). If you include it, I won't buy or play your games.

[Muzchap]

This issue has generated much interest from people who post here and people who view the thead - look at the number of view. Yes, Sega have discussed this issuse more so than EA, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of the whole issue and how we got to this place.

I would have to say that Sega have been put into a corner and have had to do this PR exercise in an attempt to calm this situation down, but has highlighted certain issues between developer and publisher as well as showing how the whole thing has been handled seems like a shambles.

Hi JonPaul - I have not been asked 'officially' to post on here - I actually have a manic schedule at the moment, but I'm taking time out to ensure you guys get the 'correct' information about how the DRM will work - prior - to release. This is a personal decision made by myself - hence the recent addition of the SEGA logo (thanks forum guys).

Yes, things could have been undertaken better, with the tight dev timescales, not everything went as smoothly as expected, I've only recently joined Sega and this is my first project with SI. Not an excuse, just an observation.

The 'post mortem' occurs around a month after street date, we let everybody recover (tiring period) and then sit down in a round table discussion and raise comments on what worked and what could have been improved. The point you raised regarding 'opt-in' will be mentioned and I'm looking forward to addressing lots of your concerns in the future. (sorry I can't be more specific on timings at present)

All I would ask, is - you give it a 'fair' go - try the system, see how it works and please come back to me in a few weeks - I would love to hear how you got on good/bad - the same goes for all of you posting your concerns.

It might be that with a bit more information up-front, some of the features you can live with, some may need to removed completely and some 'tweaked' to suit.

As I have said before, nothing is set in stone - we're committed to providing you an excellent game playing experience and Copy Protection is a facet of that - so please, work with us to get this right.

[Muzchap]

This issue has generated much interest from people who post here and people who view the thead - look at the number of view. Yes, Sega have discussed this issuse more so than EA, but that doesn't change the fundamentals of the whole issue and how we got to this place.

I would have to say that Sega have been put into a corner and have had to do this PR exercise in an attempt to calm this situation down, but has highlighted certain issues between developer and publisher as well as showing how the whole thing has been handled seems like a shambles.

I would like to say many thanks for taking the time out to post on here and to try and alleviate issues which I have.

I have read post 560 and whilst I do appreciate your honesty on this matter, DRM is still present. I do not like the idea having to activate a game ie. Big brother is watching over me.

I have bought games for many a year now. I think I got my first computer back in 1981 (ZX81) and have seen many changes. The DRM issue is one that really angers me.

Of recent years my favourite game has been BF2 (when not playing FM). I have spent literally hundreds of hours playing this. This has to be the best value for money I have ever spent. When I heard that EA were releasing BF2142 I immediately ordered it. When I received it, I found out it included IGA amongst other things. I threw it straight into the bin without ever even installing it. I was incredibly angered that the game included it, but more so that I had to enable it, to be allowed to play the game. I am sorry, but I will not allow any publisher to dictate how I play my game.

Of recent, someone bought me a copy of Crysis Warhead as a thank you present. Thanks to DRM being included, I never installed it. This time I gave it to a charity shop.

The point of my long winded reply is that I don't care how open and honest you are about DRM (or if you are EA, underhanded and despicable). If you include it, I won't buy or play your games.

Hi Chris,

No problem - thank you for a constructive reply - this is important feedback.

Ok, so DRM is not for you - do you prefer Disc Based Authentication systems?

We are making this DRM free in around 18 months (or sooner - no definites yet), would you be interested at that point? The DRM would be removed by applying a patch.

If you could answer these questions, that would be great feedback to take into my meetings.

[Dirky Diggler]

1. How fair do you think it is to install your game on 35 computers when you only pay for one? Like Microsoft Office for example. You can say it's for personal use, but I won't believe you.

2+3. Disconnect your internet, they have given you this option, which is morally acceptable.

4. NOT your property.

5. SI was quite ethically responsible in using this DRM.

If you want to make cliched and illogical complaints, how about you read this first:

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1026

this is Stardock's opinion, the company everybody agrees is the penultimate in treating gamers fairly.

And so there continues my crusade against poor arguments.

Actually I dont think its acceptable to have to disconnect your internet, I play FM in a window and browse the net at the same time, I shouldnt be restricted in that way.

Bu other points are spot on

[michaeltmurrayuk]

Hi, there is a product key It's on the back of the manual.

I think you need to understand 'OUR' DRM system and not confuse it with the 'others'.

Your approach would judge all 'cars' as equal - this simply isn't the case.

We have chosen a refined and well measured DRM approach, with many, many hours spent ensuring the scenarios you list above do not happen.

If you uninstall the game, you can choose to get your deactivation back, PC dies - no problem - visit the URL provided and deactivate that way. Its your key and your responsibility to manage it - I mean - this is a 'management' game after all

Please do keep your concerns coming - all valid concerns that people could have...

Any chance you can answer any of the below questions (I think I've removed the ones that have already been answered), before I make my final decision on whether to buy the game or not this year – I’m enjoying the demo, and have pre-ordered FM05-FM08 in the past, however the announced copy protection has me on the fence, as I have refused to buy (that includes download aswell) any game so far that includes limited installs, however I am willing to give Sega/SI a chance, and just want to know in detail what conditions will be imposed on us with FM09 and how I go about ensuring the activations last as long as possible with the least trouble for me:

Steam

Is the game on Steam also limited to 5 installs?

If it is how do we reclaim an install from Steam – do we need to uninstall Steam, delete the FM09 Local Content from Steam, or will there be another method?

When is the game activated through Steam, on download or first run? Will the game be activated on Steam after installing Steam to a second computer and logging into Steam, or do we need to run FM09 to activate?

Can the game be completely removed from Steam, and then activated in a different manner?

If I have steam installed, when I installed FM09 from disk will it automatically demand to link to my Steam account or can I choose to have it separate from Steam?

Activation

When is the game activated, only on install or does it need reactivating if you change processor, graphics card, RAM, Hard Drive etc... (Assuming Windows doesn’t need reinstalling)

If it needs re-activating what will cause it to be re-activated - adding new hardware, adding usb devices, updating drivers etc...

Will running the game under a different User Account on the same computer use up an activation.

Will using Windows System Restore (XP or Vista) to roll back to a time before FM09 was installed lose an activation?

Will using a program such as Norton Ghost keep an activation intact, or will reinstalling from an image count as a new install (assuming same computer)

Is there a way to backup an activation license? (So you make a backup of the license, Windows dies, reinstall Windows and apply your backup license, assuming no hardware changes).

If the game is installed on a second hard drive/partition to the Windows install – will the game still need un-installing to reclaim an activation, or on re-installing Windows will the game still be using the same license. (Previous versions of FM haven’t needed to be reinstalled after Windows was reinstalled if it was installed to a different partition to Windows, Steam doesn’t even need reinstalling either – but will FM09 or will it use up a second activation but not uninstalling first).

Un-Activating

Do we need to be on the Internet for the game to be de-activated?

Will we be informed on un-install that an activation was returned?

What happens if something goes wrong do we then just lose an activation?

Other Questions

Does the game ever transmit any information to do with activation/protection after the initial activation?

If it does what does it transmit?

What country are the servers located in?

Will we be informed of transmission?

What happens if the transmission is blocked by our firewall, will it piggyback onto another request?

Will any activation information be transferred when we click any other html link or the patch button in game?

Will there be a warning on the box stating that the game needs activating has limited installs?

When the 5 installs have been used up, how easy will it be to get a new license – will it be a case of emailing or phoning support and getting a quick yes/no, or will you be passed around various automated systems for hours/days/weeks and eventually told no?

Thanks.

[MSCCG]

Actually I dont think its acceptable to have to disconnect your internet, I play FM in a window and browse the net at the same time, I shouldnt be restricted in that way.

Bu other points are spot on

Yeah I wrote that line with a bit of hesitancy, because I do the same. It doesn't affect me because I block programs from accessing internet without me knowing what it is by zone alarm. To be fair though, they let you know before you install the game.

[MentallySky]

For me, I'm happy.

I can play on 5 computers at once so, no worries about losing my laptop or something.

I get unlimited installations and uninstallations, so no worries about reformatting.

I don't need to have my disk, so no worries about losing that (can and has happened).

After 18 months I won't need to use the activation if I want to play, so no worries about wanting to play a few years from now.

I don't need to risk getting a virus or trojan by downloading a hacked off the net, so no worries about that!

Where is the downside? These guys seem to have gone above and beyond to me.

[Swift89]

For me, I'm happy.

I can play on 5 computers at once so, no worries about losing my laptop or something.

I get unlimited installations and uninstallations, so no worries about reformatting.

I don't need to have my disk, so no worries about losing that (can and has happened).

After 18 months I won't need to use the activation if I want to play, so no worries about wanting to play a few years from now.

I don't need to risk getting a virus or trojan by downloading a hacked off the net, so no worries about that!

Where is the downside? These guys seem to have gone above and beyond to me.

Agree 100%

[Chris Waddle]

Chris Waddle - Please read POST 560 - you will not have an issue in that circumstance...

Hi Chris,

No problem - thank you for a constructive reply - this is important feedback.

Ok, so DRM is not for you - do you prefer Disc Based Authentication systems?

We are making this DRM free in around 18 months (or sooner - no definites yet), would you be interested at that point? The DRM would be removed by applying a patch.

If you could answer these questions, that would be great feedback to take into my meetings.

Again, thanks for the reply. Yes, I do prefer disc based authentication systems. I will have bought; or someone has for me, the game. I have no problems at all with having to put the disc in the machine and entering a serial number. No data is collected, but in order to play the game I need to have a genuine version of the game.

As for you making the game DRM free in 18 months, yes, at this point I would play it, but by then it would be out of date and replaced by FM10. Wouldn't be much point in buying it then.

I realise that my reaction to data collection may be more extreme than others. You are being very open about it, but there are other companies out there who aren't. If they do not explain what they are doing, how do I know what information they are collecting? I object to it all on principle.

I'll also be honest, your method will allow me to play the game on my machine and also allow my son to play it on his, with only needing one copy of the game. If, for example, with BF2, he wanted to play on-line with me, he would need another copy of the game so that he has his own unique serial number. I would still prefer to have to buy two copies without any data collection than one copy with data collection. In the past I have purchased several copies of the FM series as presents for people. If the game is good and people are honest, they will buy the game.

DRM does not stop pirates. If people do not want to buy the game and get it for free they will do this anyway. All I see DRM & IGA doing is annoying a percentage of your customers. Without DRM / IGA I'll bet 100% of the people who have posted on this thread and like the game would buy the game. No matter how good your game is, with DRM / IGA I won't buy it.

[Muzchap]

Any chance you can answer any of the below questions (I think I've removed the ones that have already been answered), before I make my final decision on whether to buy the game or not this year – I’m enjoying the demo, and have pre-ordered FM05-FM08 in the past, however the announced copy protection has me on the fence, as I have refused to buy (that includes download aswell) any game so far that includes limited installs, however I am willing to give Sega/SI a chance, and just want to know in detail what conditions will be imposed on us with FM09 and how I go about ensuring the activations last as long as possible with the least trouble for me:

Steam

Is the game on Steam also limited to 5 installs?

If it is how do we reclaim an install from Steam – do we need to uninstall Steam, delete the FM09 Local Content from Steam, or will there be another method?

When is the game activated through Steam, on download or first run? Will the game be activated on Steam after installing Steam to a second computer and logging into Steam, or do we need to run FM09 to activate?

Can the game be completely removed from Steam, and then activated in a different manner?

If I have steam installed, when I installed FM09 from disk will it automatically demand to link to my Steam account or can I choose to have it separate from Steam?

Activation

When is the game activated, only on install or does it need reactivating if you change processor, graphics card, RAM, Hard Drive etc... (Assuming Windows doesn’t need reinstalling)

If it needs re-activating what will cause it to be re-activated - adding new hardware, adding usb devices, updating drivers etc...

Will running the game under a different User Account on the same computer use up an activation.

Will using Windows System Restore (XP or Vista) to roll back to a time before FM09 was installed lose an activation?

Will using a program such as Norton Ghost keep an activation intact, or will reinstalling from an image count as a new install (assuming same computer)

Is there a way to backup an activation license? (So you make a backup of the license, Windows dies, reinstall Windows and apply your backup license, assuming no hardware changes).

If the game is installed on a second hard drive/partition to the Windows install – will the game still need un-installing to reclaim an activation, or on re-installing Windows will the game still be using the same license. (Previous versions of FM haven’t needed to be reinstalled after Windows was reinstalled if it was installed to a different partition to Windows, Steam doesn’t even need reinstalling either – but will FM09 or will it use up a second activation but not uninstalling first).

Un-Activating

Do we need to be on the Internet for the game to be de-activated?

Will we be informed on un-install that an activation was returned?

What happens if something goes wrong do we then just lose an activation?

Other Questions

Does the game ever transmit any information to do with activation/protection after the initial activation?

If it does what does it transmit?

What country are the servers located in?

Will we be informed of transmission?

What happens if the transmission is blocked by our firewall, will it piggyback onto another request?

Will any activation information be transferred when we click any other html link or the patch button in game?

Will there be a warning on the box stating that the game needs activating has limited installs?

When the 5 installs have been used up, how easy will it be to get a new license – will it be a case of emailing or phoning support and getting a quick yes/no, or will you be passed around various automated systems for hours/days/weeks and eventually told no?

Thanks.

Hi Michael,

Wow - that's a long post - ok let me try to answer for you:

STEAM

Yes, Steam will also use the DRM protection system. If you delete local content from Steam, the machine is still activated, you will need to follow the URL link (to be provided) to deactivate the game. You can re-install without deactivating though.

You can only play on 1 pc at a time through Steam, as it's tied to your user account, this is a Steam limitation. That said, playing more than 1 game consequtively would be pretty difficult...

Activation

Activated 'once' on first run.

You can remove graphics cards, sound cards, HDD etc - eventually you will break the licence, but simply deactivate and reactivate. Drivers have no effect.

The game is Games For Windows authenticated, so only the install/uninstall runs in an elevated account.

Using a system restore will render the activation invalid, but simply deactivate and reactivate.

There is no reliable way to backup the activation licence, the best thing is deactivate and reactivate.

The location for the licence is pre-set, so it will always install in the same location.

Un-Activating

No, if you uninstall, it takes care of it offline, or you can use the webservice. If something does go wrong, please contact customer services.

Other Questions

No - once activated, no further transmissions of data are necessary.

The servers are currently located in the US

If you are talking about IGA - I cannot answer 100% as I'm not sure, could you please raise these concerns in the IGA Thread.

In the 'very' unlikely event that you require further licence seats, you can contact our Customer Services team (details in the manual), who are primed and ready to assist you. We certainly would not pass you around or make your life difficult - please PM me if you experience anything other than a great service and I will personally look into your case.

Thank you for posting such a constructive and well thought out message. I hope my answers give you the confidence needed to at least try the product - and I really hope you become an FM09 owner in the near future.

[Muzchap]

Again, thanks for the reply. Yes, I do prefer disc based authentication systems. I will have bought; or someone has for me, the game. I have no problems at all with having to put the disc in the machine and entering a serial number. No data is collected, but in order to play the game I need to have a genuine version of the game.

As for you making the game DRM free in 18 months, yes, at this point I would play it, but by then it would be out of date and replaced by FM10. Wouldn't be much point in buying it then.

I realise that my reaction to data collection may be more extreme than others. You are being very open about it, but there are other companies out there who aren't. If they do not explain what they are doing, how do I know what information they are collecting? I object to it all on principle.

I'll also be honest, your method will allow me to play the game on my machine and also allow my son to play it on his, with only needing one copy of the game. If, for example, with BF2, he wanted to play on-line with me, he would need another copy of the game so that he has his own unique serial number. I would still prefer to have to buy two copies without any data collection than one copy with data collection. In the past I have purchased several copies of the FM series as presents for people. If the game is good and people are honest, they will buy the game.

DRM does not stop pirates. If people do not want to buy the game and get it for free they will do this anyway. All I see DRM & IGA doing is annoying a percentage of your customers. Without DRM / IGA I'll bet 100% of the people who have posted on this thread and like the game would buy the game. No matter how good your game is, with DRM / IGA I won't buy it.

Chris,

Again, thank you for taking the time and effort to convey your feelings, I do appreciate your comments.

It's such a hard situation to be in - some people hate Disc Checking, some love it - we almost need a 'hybrid' system - whereby you choose which you would prefer.

The personal details thing - if we asked for your consent and displayed the information you were submitting, before submitting and gave you the chance to remove details / columns etc - would you find that acceptable? (sorry to labour the point, but just trying to establish an acceptable compromise)

The 18month is 'worst-case' - certainly in light of the discussions here - we may be back to the drawing board earlier than expected.

I think the other interesting point raised is IGA - I'm not privvy to the discussions on that, but that seems to be attracting a lot of negativity - again, this should have been optional - if it was, then you would have been able to purchase the game.

Thanks again for your comments.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

Probably to keep it quietish, i mean i wonder how many Potential fm09 buyers, who don't use these forums, know that its going to come with DRM and what DRm actually means. Im still waiting for a reply to my quesion regarding the box cover and if it states on there that it will contain DRM.

Far Cry 2 states in smallish writing on the back of the box that it is protected by Securom with 5 installs, which is better than EA who when they could be bothered to put a warning regarding online activation on the box they put it in the corner where the price sticker goes.

[McMaster#28]

Hi "Muzchap".

Cheers for the great answers. Especially the deactiviating procedure from Steam. I've been trying to find that out for a while.

Anyway I have one question regarding something you said on the previous page:

1) You can install the game on ALL 35 of your computers You can only play 5 at a time though.

Don't you mean you can only install it on 5 at a time though? Not "play 5 at a time".

Thanks,

[Muzchap]

Hi "Muzchap".

Cheers for the great answers. Especially the deactiviating procedure from Steam. I've been trying to find that out for a while.

Anyway I have one question regarding something you said on the previous page:

Don't you mean you can only install it on 5 at a time though? Not "play 5 at a time".

Thanks,

Hi Francis - no - you can install the game on as many machines as you like, but only 5 unique machines will be able to play the game

[McMaster#28]

Perhaps I should have rephrased my question. Subsitute installed for activated.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

You're potentially correct about the EULA not standing up in court (according to some US posters, it doesn't stand up in some American states), but for the wrong reason. The fact that people don't choose to read the EULA (and you're right - the vast majority of people won't read it) doesn't negate the EULA - many people don't read terms and conditions or small print (madness!), but that doesn't negate them.

Some people have argued that EULA's are not binding because of the fact you can only read them after the purchase. I'm not sure how that would stand up if challenged in the UK, but I can see the merit in that argument.

In the UK EULA's would more than likely come under the Unfair Contract Terms and Sale of Goods Act (fit for purpose etc...)

[Muzchap]

Perhaps I should have rephrased my question. Subsitute installed for activated.

Ahh - now that makes more sense, yes you could activate 5 of them

[McMaster#28]

Sorry for the confusion! Thanks for the answer (especially the steam one further up).

[Chris Waddle]

Chris,

Again, thank you for taking the time and effort to convey your feelings, I do appreciate your comments.

It's such a hard situation to be in - some people hate Disc Checking, some love it - we almost need a 'hybrid' system - whereby you choose which you would prefer.

The personal details thing - if we asked for your consent and displayed the information you were submitting, before submitting and gave you the chance to remove details / columns etc - would you find that acceptable? (sorry to labour the point, but just trying to establish an acceptable compromise)

The 18month is 'worst-case' - certainly in light of the discussions here - we may be back to the drawing board earlier than expected.

I think the other interesting point raised is IGA - I'm not privvy to the discussions on that, but that seems to be attracting a lot of negativity - again, this should have been optional - if it was, then you would have been able to purchase the game.

Thanks again for your comments.

I understand completely what you mean about disk checking. Whilst I am happy to enter a serial number, without the disk check, there would be nothing to stop someone installing it on a number of pc's. I don't agree with being able to do this as it can lead to misuse. It's not a perfect system, but I find it to be the one I prefer.

Regarding asking for my consent on data collection. In theory I am fine with this, if you ask me to fill out a form. If you want to install a program to get it for you, then no. My issue is with DRM. I do not want automatic data collection.

Even showing me what you want submitting is an issue for me. This game, I am sure, is all above board in what it collects. Another game may collect information that I don't want it to. Whilst the way you are going about this is to be applauded, I will not buy any game with DRM in it. I do not want it, ever. Even with all of your best intentions I believe it to be wrong and open for abuse by less scrupulous organisations.

Now, if the game didn't have DRM but did have fixed IGA, again I won't buy it. If the IGA is optional (ie. I can choose not to install it in advanced setup) then yes, I would be happy to purchase the game.

I have bought the complete series of this game since its original release on DOS. Now, thanks to the addition of what I see as obtrusive software, I find myself in a position where I will not buy the game again.

[Indi75]

In the UK EULA's would more than likely come under the Unfair Contract Terms and Sale of Goods Act (fit for purpose etc...)

This, therefore makes interesting reading:

An issue that frequently concerns users of computer software is the validity of `shrink wrapped' end-user licence agreements (EULAs). A `shrink wrapped' EULA is one that the purchaser does not see before making the purchase. The name derives from the practice of putting the EULA inside the sealed package, so that it cannot be seen in the shop. Although there are other ways of buying software, most PC software is still sold from retailers as shrink-wrapped boxes. Typically the EULA will be found to contain a statement that use of the software will be deemed to constitute acceptance of its terms.

The questions that most commonly arise are these:

• If I don't agree to the licence terms when I finally find out what they are, can I expect the retailer to refund my money? Do I have legal redress if he does not?
  
• If the licence agreement prohibits me from doing essential operations, like making backup copies of software, can I be held to this?
  
• If the EULA states that the vendor will not accept liability for loss or damage, or undertake to supply a product that actually works, is it enforceable?
  

There is very little case law, or Statute law, that applies directly to EULAs. The little that there is seems to suggest that the answers to these questions are yes, yes, and no respectively. But the situation is far from simple. This article summarises the legal position as it appears to be at present.

Consider a hypothetical shopping transaction between a customer -- let's call him Fred -- and a large computer retailer called CompuSave. Fred enters the shop, finds the software he wants, and takes it to the checkout. Let's suppose that Fred is buying a copy of a word processor -- DogWord -- from DogSlow Software Ltd.

Now, there are potentially three parties to this transaction: Fred, the consumer; CompuSave, the retailer; and DogSlow, the owner of the intellectual property in the software. Agreements between more than two parties have always been troublesome under English law; we have something called `privity of contract' which means, essentially, that only people who are directly parties to a contract can seek to enforce it, or be bound by it.

The classical expression of this doctrine is illustrated something called the `wedding list problem'. Mary goes to a department store to buy a wedding present for Joe and Susan, who are getting married. Let's suppose she buys them a toaster. After the wedding Mary, sadly, passes away, as does the toaster. Joe and Susan return the toaster to the department store, hoping for a replacement. However, Joe and Mary don't have a contract with the store -- Mary had that, and she's not going to be able to enforce it, at least not without the use of a ouija board. Joe and Mary are left without a remedy in law, even though the original contract was made for their benefit. As we shall see, this concept is an important one where software licences are concerned. Recently legislation has allowed the courts to recognize the rights of third parties to enforce a contract, under certain limited circumstances. We'll come back to that later.

What contracts are formed in Fred's transaction with CompuSave? First, he has a contract with CompuSave to supply goods. It was established decisively in 1952 (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists) that when one buys goods from a shop, in the absence of clear indication to the contrary, the contract of sale is concluded at the checkout. That is, once Fred has handed over his money and picked up up his goods, the contract is complete. Although it is not written down and signed, there is a contract nonetheless, and its terms will be those governed by Statute and by the practice of the courts. For example, it will be an implied term of this contract that the goods supplied will be fit for their purpose. Either party may sue the other under the terms of the contract. For example, if Fred found when he got home that the box was empty, he would have a case against CompuSave for breach of contract.

But what has Fred actually bought from CompuSave? He has bought the property rights to the physical materials (largely worthless) and the right to use the software in a particular way. He hasn't bought any rights to ownership of the software itself. To people who are unfamiliar with intellectual property law this sounds a bit odd, but really it's no different to the agreement you have with a landowner when you enter the premises on licence. A supermarket grants me a licence to enter their property for the purposes of shopping, but that does not give me the right to carry away the display counters. It's the same with software (or books, or audio recordings): the right of use is sold separately from the right of ownership. All this is governed by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (1988).

So, in order to use DogWord, Fred must either have an agreement with DogSlow, or a Statutory right under the 1988 Act. The tricky part is this: does Fred have a contract with DogSlow? If he does not, can he be bound by the terms of the EULA? Three possible answers seem to be worthy of consideration.

• First possibility: Fred has a contract with DogSlow, formed when he accepted the terms of the EULA. This acceptance may be at the point of purchase, or when he begins to use the software.
  
• Second possibility: Fred has no contract with DogSlow; nevertheless the terms of the EULA form part of the contract he has with CompuSave. If Fred breaches those terms, then CompuSave can seek legal redress. They will probably only do this if their contract with DogSlow allows DogSlow to seek redress against CompuSave, if CompuSave fails to seek redress against Fred.
  
• Third possibility: Fred has no contract with DogSlow, and the EULA does not form part of the contract with CompuSave. The EULA is thus unenforceable, and Fred's right to use the software will then be governed by Statute.
  

So which of these is correct under English law? In order to have a contract with DogSlow, and indeed with anyone, certain formalities must subsist. Among these is the peculiarly English notion of `consideration'. This says, in essence, that both parties to a contract must offer something to one another. If I offer to make a gift to you of my watch, for example -- I'm feeling generous today -- and you accept it, we don't have a contract. You can't then sue me if I refuse to hand it over. Under the principle of consideration, you must offer something in return. It needn't be much, but it must be something. If you offer me tenpence for my watch, and I accept, then we do have a contract.

Now, in the `agreement' between Fred and DogSlow, where is the consideration, and who is offering what to whom? It could be argued that DogSlow is offering Fred the right to use the software, but, if that is the case, what consideration is Fred offering? In any event, Fred may have a Statutory right to use the software (we'll get on to that later), so it could be argued that DogSlow aren't offering anything of value. So, it seems likely that there is not an explicit contract between Fred and DogSlow.

In that case, are the EULA terms part of the contract between Fred and CompuSave?

In 1997, in the case of Beta Computers (Europe) Ltd v Adobe Systems (Europe) Ltd , it was determined that the EULA was part of the contract between the retailer and the end user. Moreover, it was held that the contract for sale was not concluded at the checkout -- as is the usual assumption -- but later when the package was opened. The facts of the case are that Adobe bought a piece of Informix software from Beta. When they read the terms of the licence agreement, Adobe decided not to accept the terms, and refused to pay Beta. Beta sued Adobe for the money. The court held that Adobe did not have to pay, because they did not have any contract with Beta -- that contract could not be formed until Adobe had accepted the licence terms.

Now Beta is a Scottish case, heard in the Outer House of the Court of Session. It is therefore not binding on an English or a Welsh court. However, the stature of the Court makes the ruling persuasive, and it may well be followed outside Scotland were the issue to be raised.

However, it has been strongly argued that Beta made a fundamental error of law, and that it ought not to be followed. In order to see why, we have to understand the reasoning applied by Lord Penrose in that case. First, he decided that there was no agreement between Adobe and Informix. Informix could not seek to enforce the licence terms itself. Now, if there was no agreement, the outcome was either that the EULA was incorporated into the contract of sale, or that Adobe could not use the software. Why could Adobe not use the software? Because the software could only be used by copying it onto Adobe's computers. Such a copying, if not authorised by an agreement with the copyright owner (Informix) would be illegal under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (1988). Clearly it is of no benefit to buy a piece of software which one has no right to use. Therefore, reasoned Lord Penrose, the EULA must for part of the contract between the user and the retailer, because its terms are necessary to allow the software to be used, and there is no contract with the intellectual property holder. Moreover, since one can't accept terms that one hasn't seen, the contract can't exist until the terms are accepted, which are when the user starts to use the software (or unpacks it, if it is sealed).

The logic is inescapable: the EULA must be enforceable because, if it were not, the purchaser of software could not use it at all, lacking an agreement with the copyright owner. It was also argued that if the EULA were unenforceable, this would be bad for the computing industry as a whole, because it relies on licence agreements to limit the fiscal damage caused by people using software without paying.

Unfortunately, although the logic is sound, its premises are not. The principle that one could not use software without an explicit agreement with the copyright owner is simply wrong. Section 50C of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (1988), which was inserted in 1992 to comply with an EC directive, says that a person who legally acquires computer software has the right to copy it if that is what is necessary to make it useable. Therefore, an EULA is not required to make it possible for the purchaser to use the software: this right is in Statute. Moreover, it can easily be argued that software authors cannot claim that licence agreements are necessary to protect their business interests. First, the 1988 Act prohibits unlawful copying of software. No additional agreement is necessary for this, and prosecutions have been brought successfully. Second, although software authors often seek to use EULAs to limit their liability for loss or damage arising from the use of the software, this is probably unlawful under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977). An attempt to force the consumer to agree that the supplier is not liable if the goods fail to live up to expectation is also likely to be prohibited by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (1999). So, in short, the EULA is neither necessary for the consumer's benefit, not helpful for the suppliers'.

So where does this leave Fred? The decision in Beta, if it were followed by another court, has two consequences. First, if he did not want to accept the licence terms, he could expect a refund from CompuSave. The retailer would not be allowed -- as Beta did -- to claim that the EULA was none of its concern. This would be true whether or not the EULA said that he could expect a refund: under Beta there is simply no contract, and CompuSave has no right to retain the money it received. Second, if Fred misused the software -- by making illegal copies, for example, then CompuSave would have a cause of action against him. To give this teeth, the EULA would probably need to state that it could be enforced by DogSlow -- this would allow DogSlow to invoke the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (1999) to hold Fred to the agreement. Third, Fred could not be bound by provisions in the EULA that tried to limit the vendor's liability for loss or damage, or for supplying an inadequate product, because these provisions would be unenforceable under Statute.

The problem with all this is deciding whether an English court would follow the ruling in Beta. I have tried to show that there is every reason not too: the case was decided without consideration of a relevant Statutory provision. If Beta is not followed, then there seems little alternative than to assume that EULAs are unenforceable. Vendors can avoid this problem very easily: they simply need to print the licence terms on the box, and ensure that they are seen by the customer before purchase. This, I suggest, could be made part of the contract of sale and therefore enforceable.

Source: http://www.kevinboone.com/eula.html

Make of it what you will, it's certainly not cut and dried.

[Hamselv]

Thank you for your post - If I say we are ONLY using Hardware Insight - then that is ALL we are using? Where is the benefit in me lying?

I'm not accusing you of lying. In the post I responded to you didn't say you were ONLY using hardware insight and none of the other insight features. Then you asked:

There is no 'profiling' or 'monitoring' of how you play the game? Where this came from is beyond me?

So I told you that since you are using one of the insight features it didn't seem far fetched that you were using the others too. That's were it came from, and thanks for clearing things up.

If you took the time to understand how DRM works, you would quickly figure out how we can tell how many licences are being used. It has nothing to do with the 'Insight' product - which is completely separate from the DRM system.

I am quite aware of how DRM works, and I'm not talking about being able to see how many times the game is activated. I'm talking about the fact that Miles claimed at some point that you guys can see whether the game is installed 5 times by one guy on his own 5 computers, or if 5 different people have installed the game one time each on their own computers. One person could have his 5 computers located at different places with different IP addresses, so that claim is not possible the way things have been described so far. So, the License insight seemed like one possible explanation to this claim.

The term DRM free - is exactly what it says on the 'tin' - DRM FREE (can I be any clearer?)

Cool, you might get a sale 18 months from now then.

Well have fun playing Windows then

I think I'll just stick to my FM08 instead

It's such a hard situation to be in - some people hate Disc Checking, some love it - we almost need a 'hybrid' system - whereby you choose which you would prefer.

I suggested that a long time ago. When you install the game you are asked whether you wish to activate the game or not. If you choose yes, you get to play without the disc, if you choose no you need to insert the disc to play. So, simple and everyone would be happy. That's why I still don't understand why SI that usually claims to be in close contact with their customers, simply made this DRM decision "one afternoon in the office" without taking a discussion like this first. If this suggestion is possible, then having know just how divided people are on this matter beforehand, would have saved you a lot of trouble and would have allowed me to buy the game now instead of having to wait 18 months.

Being a software developer myself, I feel that such a hybrid solution should be possible without too much trouble. I can't remember if the DRM you use even supports a disc-check, but I do know that several others support both limited online-activations and disc-checks. Just as an example SecuROM is sometimes still used to just perform a disc-check (Fallout 3), sometimes to just do an online-activation (Far Cry 2), and sometimes online activation and disc-check at the same time (Spore or Bioshock I think, but I'm not completely sure). So, it shouldn't be too hard to make this choice during install, or perhaps the first time the game is started.

[Muzchap]

I understand completely what you mean about disk checking. Whilst I am happy to enter a serial number, without the disk check, there would be nothing to stop someone installing it on a number of pc's. I don't agree with being able to do this as it can lead to misuse. It's not a perfect system, but I find it to be the one I prefer.

Regarding asking for my consent on data collection. In theory I am fine with this, if you ask me to fill out a form. If you want to install a program to get it for you, then no. My issue is with DRM. I do not want automatic data collection.

Even showing me what you want submitting is an issue for me. This game, I am sure, is all above board in what it collects. Another game may collect information that I don't want it to. Whilst the way you are going about this is to be applauded, I will not buy any game with DRM in it. I do not want it, ever. Even with all of your best intentions I believe it to be wrong and open for abuse by less scrupulous organisations.

Now, if the game didn't have DRM but did have fixed IGA, again I won't buy it. If the IGA is optional (ie. I can choose not to install it in advanced setup) then yes, I would be happy to purchase the game.

I have bought the complete series of this game since its original release on DOS. Now, thanks to the addition of what I see as obtrusive software, I find myself in a position where I will not buy the game again.

Chris,

Ok - so just to confirm (ensuring I represent your standpoint correctly)

1) You do not wish to transmit information (know/unknown) (Hardware Insight)

2) You would like to disable IGA

3) You prefer disc authentication over DRM

It's a real shame you won't be buying a copy this year I had hoped there was something I could do to help you out, but unfortunately, even with IGA removed and Hardware Insight stopped - there's still the DRM guard module. Let's hope we can get a non-DRM version out quicker, in the hope that you will find it to your satisfaction.

Certainly some lessons to learn for FM10 - we will definitely be canvassing opinion from very early on. So please don't rule out FM forever.

[Eduardo]

I will still be buying the game because i am an addict!

My problem with the whole DRM thing is that publishers have to understand that when you sell a product to a customer it becomes there own copy.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, your main intention is getting the product out there to make money.... if you were giving the game away for free you would most likely not be using DRM.

DRM is an inconvenience to the paying customer, considering no protection method is crack proof (SPORE, FIFA 09 etc) why patronize your customers with this BS.

[pele10]

no FM09 for me

[GillsMan]

In the UK EULA's would more than likely come under the Unfair Contract Terms and Sale of Goods Act (fit for purpose etc...)

Unfair Contract Terms yes; Sale of Goods Act, no. Fwiw, I don't think any challenge would succeed. Having dealt with cases with people claiming under the Unfair Contract legislation (albeit from a non-legislative angle) I doubt anyone would have grounds upon which to mount a successful challenge (this is based on guess work though, so don't take this as definitive).

[Muzchap]

I'm not accusing you of lying. In the post I responded to you didn't say you were ONLY using hardware insight and none of the other insight features. Then you asked:

So I told you that since you are using one of the insight features it didn't seem far fetched that you were using the others too. That's were it came from, and thanks for clearing things up.

I am quite aware of how DRM works, and I'm not talking about being able to see how many times the game is activated. I'm talking about the fact that Miles claimed at some point that you guys can see whether the game is installed 5 times by one guy on his own 5 computers, or if 5 different people have installed the game one time each on their own computers. One person could have his 5 computers located at different places with different IP addresses, so that claim is not possible the way things have been described so far. So, the License insight seemed like one possible explanation to this claim.

Cool, you might get a sale 18 months from now then.

I think I'll just stick to my FM08 instead

I suggested that a long time ago. When you install the game you are asked whether you wish to activate the game or not. If you choose yes, you get to play without the disc, if you choose no you need to insert the disc to play. So, simple and everyone would be happy. That's why I still don't understand why SI that usually claims to be in close contact with their customers, simply made this DRM decision "one afternoon in the office" without taking a discussion like this first. If this suggestion is possible, then having know just how divided people are on this matter beforehand, would have saved you a lot of trouble and would have allowed me to buy the game now instead of having to wait 18 months.

Being a software developer myself, I feel that such a hybrid solution should be possible without too much trouble. I can't remember if the DRM you use even supports a disc-check, but I do know that several others support both limited online-activations and disc-checks. Just as an example SecuROM is sometimes still used to just perform a disc-check (Fallout 3), sometimes to just do an online-activation (Far Cry 2), and sometimes online activation and disc-check at the same time (Spore or Bioshock I think, but I'm not completely sure). So, it shouldn't be too hard to make this choice during install, or perhaps the first time the game is started.

Hi - The problem with using SecuROM is that people also hate that product and it does install system drivers and blacklists legitimate applications.

I agree - a hybrid system is the way forward. Ok - perhaps I'm mis-reading your comments, but this definitely wasn't thought out in an afternoon - plenty of effort has gone into this decision.

Well, 18 months was the outside window - hopefully it will come back closer to around 12 months.

It's a shame to lose you as a customer initially. Thank you for participating in the debate, I'll ensure that your feedback is noted and we look to do something along these lines in the future. In the meantime if you use a good copy protection system - feel free to PM me and we'll investigate (that goes for everybody else too...)

[TeeWee]

Muzchap, while I know you don't have time to answer all the posts, would you be so kind as to take a look at my response to you in #770? Thanks.

[Dirky Diggler]

Muz, you work too hard, go to sleep or go relax somewhere, youve answered enough question already