Gundato: By that same token, the US Military needs to explicitly tell people learning how to use a multimeter that they can actually kill themselves by stabbing themselves in the heart with the probes (the current between the two probes can evidently be lethal if in a sufficiently low-resistance medium). Yeah, that is dangerous, and it allegedly came about because some moron did it. Can you see how not everything needs to be listed on boxes? :p
Same with a lot of other warning labels on over the counter medicine.
Same thing here. People care because they don't like Securom, same way they didn't like Starforce. But the most vocal people I have heard complaining about this are the ones who are so concerned about the people who don't have internet connections but still are fully informed on the DRM-debate.
You say to put a label on the box saying that people should go to a website to learn more. Can you see how that is not all that useful? If we are going to force them to go to a website, just skip the middle man. The only thing this accomplishes is increases the hysteria-factor (which may be the point, but isn't really fair to the people who just use Securom's disc-check method).
You say that people who don't have internet connections need to know, otherwise they can't play their games. I agree, so why not just tell them they need an internet connection and avoid going through all the nuances and details?
And Stuff is suggesting that VERY useful looking box. I actually agree, and would love something like that. But it just doesn't have enough info. It doesn't distinguish between how TAGES and Securom's methods work. it doesn't distinguish between Starforce's disc-check and Safedisc's disc-check. It doesn't distinguish between FADE and Safedisc. Because FADE has always been problematic for legitimate users to grab cracks to avoid needing discs (which is why I bought OFP here).
Everyone is complaining that people need to make informed decisions. I agree. But the subject is just too complicated to be put on a box. And besides, outside of Stuff's argument (which, I agree with, but feel it would take up too much box real-estate to actually be fair to all the different methods, and would need to be updated every year because a new kind of model needs to add another field to the box), this isn't letting people make informed decisions. This is telling people what one side of the argument wants them to know, and expecting them to research the other side's viewpoint.
Going back to warning labels: It would be like if an abstinence group got to label a condom box. They wouldn't put "99.9% effective" or whatever the actual number is. They would just put "Warning: You might still knock her up". It is true, and it is letting people make MORE informed decisions (and it might actually be a better label...), but it isn't actually making an informed decision. It is guiding them to make your decision.
And another magic edit that should not bugger things up.
Honestly, based upon the arguments made here, I think the solution we could ALL agree with would just be a single line. Something like
Securom 5.3131a
or
Securom 6.3b
or
Safedisc 9.5
or
TAGES 8.7
I mean, that lets people make the informed decision of having to google to know what is going on. And it lets those of us who are already informed make our decisions based on that. And it only takes up one line of box-space :p

cogadh: @Gundato (sorry, quoting in this thread is becoming a pain in the ass)
So because you think it is impossible to give everyone all the info they might need to make an informed decision on a game box, that we should instead give them nothing more than an "internet connection required" in the system reqs? At least by the proposed method consumers are given the option of finding out, if they want to, and a source to go looking for that info. No one is proposing that this label be biased in any way, it will not say "WARNING: This game has DRM!!!!", it will simply say "This game uses SecuROM DRM. For more information go to www.securom.com" A simple statement of fact that actually gives the consumer the most biased source for information about DRM on the planet. If anything, it is not anti-DRM at all, it almost a pro-DRM propagandist move.

Stuff: Sorry, I just can't buy your arguments, well written and informative as they are. You avoid the simple point of putting five or six important pieces of DRM info on the box with "if's", "but's and "maybe's".
It is a simple feat to put the five points I mentioned on the box . . .
People can use/not use the info . . . it's their decision . . . give them a chance to decide
Pulling up numerous hypothetical rebuttals only makes the issue seem complicated . . . again, inform the purchaser . . . let them decide
=) Quotes don't seem to be working but I will try to conform to your requirements

Gundato: The problem is: Those five facts are not actually indicative enough. IF you want to inform the purchaser, inform them. Let them know there is a difference between the version of TAGES used by Riddick and the version of Securom used by MEPC. Let them know that a game like Operation Flashpoint might only have a disc check, but they are going to have a hellish time finding cracks for it if they ever don't want to use the CD
The five facts you propose just don't do that. They only give a very broad portion of the story that only serves to misinform the public. Again, I cite Dark Athena. I myself have been annoyed (but wanting to play) that game for something like a year or two (whenever it came out). Escape from Butcher Bay remake? New story? Riddick? But we always just heard "It has limited activations". What I learned last month (right after it was on sale :p) was that the activation model is actually very different than Securom.
The five facts you propose don't give that information, and will just further misinform the public. So again, if our goal is to inform them, we are going to need a lot of space. If our goal is to let them inform themselves, give them the essentials (do they need internet), and then the tools they need to research the rest (the actual DRM used).

Stuff: I guess why I'm so disappointed in the discussion it that you insist that I accept your opinions as if they were facts. We all have opinions and I respect yours. I am not asking for facts to be disclosed (although they are), I am asking that the five pieces of info that affect the use of the game be plainly stated on the box, website or service.
Publishers have every right to put DRM in a game. I have every right to know what limitations it imposes or what changes it makes to my system.
You keep repeating they don't provide enough information, your opinion, I respect it. I keep repeating that it does provide enough info, my opinion, please respect that.
I have tried to state the same point in several different ways and you continuously refuse to acknowledge that the five items just could be fair and informative to a larger audience than just yourself. I think we are at a place where we should agree to disagree . . .=)

Gundato: I am not saying my opinions are facts. What I am saying is that the five facts you want are not enough.
Again, how does this handle a case like Riddick? That game has already been plagued by getting an even worse rap than it deserves for having an activation model (when it actually has the only limited activation model that I like :p).
How does that handle the problems inherent in FADE? If all they see is "disc check", how do they know that they actually might have problems?
I am all for providing more information, but not at the cost of misinforming the public.
If all we care about is helping ourselves, the knowledgeable people, put the info on the website. Who cares what is on the box?
If we are interested in helping the people who aren't going to research every facet of it, let's at least not give them a partial picture.
And I still feel the need to point out that the only time where a DRM imposes a real limitation is the requirement for an internet connection. Beyond that, it just becomes a matter of all of us nitpicking because it is messing with our babies. :p

Stuff: I disagree . . . =)

cogadh: Ditto.
Frankly, even though Gun's statements are fairly well-worded, its starting to sound like he is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Kind of like a polite and fairly well-spoken troll. The problem is, we are all stating opinions here, and you know what they say about opinions and buttholes...
The simple fact of the matter is this: for years, gaming companies have provided consumers with absolutely no information about what DRM and other schemes they have tried using to protect their IPs. To certain degree, that is understandable, you don't leave a note for the car thief telling him where to find your car keys after all, but at the same time, they have taken it to extremes that are invasive and underhanded. That is the reason for the lawsuit and that is the reason that, no matter what opinions we may have as individuals on the matter, there will be information labels added to games indicating what DRM they are using and where to find more information on it... at least in the case of EA.

cogadh: Ditto.
Frankly, even though Gun's statements are fairly well-worded, its starting to sound like he is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Kind of like a polite and fairly well-spoken troll. The problem is, we are all stating opinions here, and you know what they say about opinions and buttholes...
The simple fact of the matter is this: for years, gaming companies have provided consumers with absolutely no information about what DRM and other schemes they have tried using to protect their IPs. To certain degree, that is understandable, you don't leave a note for the car thief telling him where to find your car keys after all, but at the same time, they have taken it to extremes that are invasive and underhanded. That is the reason for the lawsuit and that is the reason that, no matter what opinions we may have as individuals on the matter, there will be information labels added to games indicating what DRM they are using and where to find more information on it... at least in the case of EA.

DG: EVERY game that gets released these days comes with a crack, hours after it was released in the stores (or online). I really, really don't understand why companies like EA bother with such ineffective DRM (and they're PAYING for it!).

cogadh: Frankly, even though Gun's statements are fairly well-worded, its starting to sound like he is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.