SSFIV: Arcade Edition PC gets online-only DRM

fyro11 on 27 May '11 said:

GFWL? GTFO.

Cryotek on 27 May '11 said:

Interesting. It sounds like this may be less about piracy than about preventing hacking in multiplayer? Or is that just how they are trying to spin it?

I don't know, I could live with this, it's not like my PC is even offline anyway.

Welsh Jester on 27 May '11 said:

Too bad GFWL sucks, it's what ruined GTA IV's multiplayer..

lets have a service where you can report anyone for cheating without any evidence, and basically no anti cheat.. oh wait it already exists.

photoboy on 27 May '11 said:

Yet another clueless publisher punishing players for legally purchasing the game. A DRM-free version will be on the file sharing networks within hours of release (if not sooner).

Niknak106 on 27 May '11 said:

Seems like Sven is open to other suggestions due to the kick up.

Originally Posted by Sven
I understand there's some very strong opinions here and around the net.

Let me ask a few questions of the users here and perhaps we can come to a better solution for all folks involved. What I'm proposing is a constructive dialog and I'll take this feedback back to the team.

But first some ground rules for this discussion to be constructive:

Any posts dealing with complaints about GFWL will be summarily ignored and/or deleted depending upon the language used. That is a non-negotiable point at this point in development and it's not constructive to make that an issue. We have used GFWL with no problems on several releases and it works great on SSFIV:AE.

Any posts outright dismissing the need for DRM of some form are also not feasible, especially given the history with SFIV. Sorry, but that's another reality in which we live. Blizzard and Valve both use DRM in their games... and when they do have offline forms, they have reduced functionality/features. This is not new or exclusive in any way to Capcom.

Now, that said, it is in no way our intention to punish legitimate users. That's definitely not the purpose here. It is to attempt to ensure that our content is only enjoyed fully by legitimate users.

Question 1: Without using a secure network authentication mechanism of some kind (SSA, Steam CEG, Impulse GOO, SecuROAM, etc.) how can we validate that a copy is legitimate versus pirated?

Question 2: If it isn't what we've proposed, what form of limitations would be acceptable in the event that there in a "non trusted" mode, assuming that it can be secured?

Question 3: If there were a network validated install and we put in an offline mode that would allow you to have funtionality for some period of time, but require revalidation on a frequent interval, would that be acceptable?

Question 4: There seems to be a lot of supposition that the pirates will instantly crack whatever protections we put in place. One never knows, that could well be true. Personally, I'm not quite as defeatist. One at least has to try. Now, if we promised to "sunset" those protections in the event of a crack being created so that legitimate users don't have a substandard experience to pirates, is that an acceptable solution?

Happy to hear any other proposed solutions that could work and I'll see what we can do with the team.

Watch this space.

gilly83 on 27 May '11 said:

GWL and constant online connection - no thanks

When will Devs stop punishing us legit consumers?

boskersrevenge on 27 May '11 said:

Unpopular opinion but in this day and age, they have to do something.

There is a lot of complaining going on but not really anything in the way of alternative ideas being thought up.

damianwhitley on 27 May '11 said:

Awww...isn't it cute when developers think they've got pirates beaten?

When are they going to wake up to the fact that pirates thrive on the challenges they present? Ubisoft must've spent a ton of money on DRM for Assassin's Creed 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction and for what? Nothing. It took the pirates mere days to workaround their 'surefire' solution.

I'm so sick of being punished for buying a legit game, especially when the pirates are getting the game for nothing AND a better experience!

Why not reward users for playing with an online connection? Maybe, each time you play online you generate points that can be used to unlock characters and features? Keeps the game fresh, adds a challenge, allows you to play offline etc...

kreemi on 27 May '11 said:

Question 4: There seems to be a lot of supposition that the pirates will instantly crack whatever protections we put in place. One never knows, that could well be true. Personally, I'm not quite as defeatist. One at least has to try. Now, if we promised to "sunset" those protections in the event of a crack being created so that legitimate users don't have a substandard experience to pirates, is that an acceptable solution?

lol. talk about throwing down the gauntlet. as a legit user, something like that would make me pray for for someone to break the game.

The_KFD_Case on 27 May '11 said:

GFWL? Constant internet connection?

Some people and companies really are clueless. I hope this bombs on such a scale that they withdraw from PC gaming altogether if need be. I'd rather not have them around to muddy the waters with such crap, than risk this disease of a mentality spreading to other developers and publishers.