ok Tek has had A Very Bad Experience and I respect his view
I've never had the misfortune of SecuROM damaging my computer. The reason I refuse to install it is because other users' experiences suggest that the risk (damaging the OS and requiring a wipe and reload) is not worth the benefit (playing a game). Enough people have reported serious issues caused by SecuROM that I concluded the software is more dangerous than your average install. For me, it's a simple risk-reward analysis and SecuROM-infected games come up short.
There are more than enough terrific games available for the PC that risking my computer for a small percentage of titles (even if those are "major" titles, which refers to development budgets and not necessarily quality of gameplay) simply doesn't compute.
And that's only considering the PC games market. Consider that I also own a Wii, Playstation 2, Dreamcast, Playstation, DS Lite, and Gameboy Advance, and it may make more sense why I'm willing to kick the relatively small list of games that ship with SecuROM attached to the curb.
Even if risk weren't a concern, there's still the very real concern that DRM is getting progressively more invasive:
My issues with Secure-Rom have nothing to do with it's working or not rather I don't like the increasingly obtrusive removal of my rights in purchasing a product.
Now Ubisoft's DRM with ACII makes me die a little inside. I feel very sorry for the poor souls who don't have a 360 but have a nice PC who want to play that game.
I recently read this quote from Tycho of Penny Arcade and it caught my attention:
Every avenue of convenience for the user is also a vector of exploitation.
They have given up.
As fiery rhetoric goes, this sucks. It doesn't have that revolutionary quality that rallies the faithful. The trouble is that this dialogue between pirates and publishers, one which was always characterized by falsehood and ill-will, has ceased to exist in this case. A maneuver this extreme means that they're finished talking altogether: this mechanism is their response, the final word. Only it's impossible to get the final word here in The Cloud. Ever.
And no-one of any sense has ever bet against the scorn and resourcefulness of young men.
If gamers tolerate SecuROM, then they'll tolerate an even more inconvenient and possibly even more invasive DRM. Enter Ubisoft's "always connected" DRM.
We all know where Ubisoft's DRM is headed: Pirates will crack it inside the month of release (and that's a conservative estimate; a more likely scenario is that the game is leaked and cracked before the release date) and only legitimate users will have to deal with the hassles associated with the DRM.
As I've said before, game publishers have a right to protect their product. They take the risk of spending large sums of money to license, publish, and distribute games. It makes sense they would protect their investment.
But SecuROM and Ubisoft's new DRM are not the right way to do it. There are alternatives. And by refusing to purchase games that come with invasive DRM attached, I'm speaking with my wallet when I say, "Find those alternatives and use them."
but the only way to find out if you will have a problem is to install the game [or Beta if you want 2 weeks worth]
If I had a spare computer that I used exclusively for games, that might be a reasonable option. But since I use the same computer for gaming and productivity (including the job search and my online responsibilities), I'm not willing to take that chance. A wipe and reload would take multiple days, not hours, to get back to the point where my computer is fully operational.
I agree with Keero and see it like this, if I want the game I buy it and if I have a problem I will not Boycott every game using the same security software, thats like saying "If I buy a quart of spoiled milk I will never Drink Milk Again"
If milk is supposed to be SecuROM in this analogy, a closer comparison would be discovering that you're lactose intolerant. Sure, you could go out and buy another carton of milk from another store, but it seems somewhat silly to think the same thing isn't going to happen again.
Like I've said before: If you don't have any qualms with playing games with SecuROM attached, have at it. If you own your computer, it's your risk to take. (If it's your parent's computer or a shared family computer, then no, it's not your risk to take. The decision should belong to the person who owns the hardware and software.)
As for me, I've assessed the potential risks and potential benefits and I've made my decision. I want publishers to earnestly search for a method of protecting their investment that doesn't put the end user's computer at risk or makes games any more inconvenient to play and maintain than they already are. It's a tall order and there may be trial and error, but Ubisoft's new DRM suggests they're not even trying to find a balanced solution.
