I’ve been doing some reading up on Securom since my entry yesterday about it and it seems that I already own a couple of games that make use of it. One of those games is another FPS called F.E.A.R. and I have to admit that the implementation of Securom on that title was transparent enough that I didn’t even realize it was there. It didn’t conflict with Microsoft’s Process Explorer, doesn’t require online activation as far as I can recall, and doesn’t care how many times you reinstall the game. From what I understand the version included with F.E.A.R. is older than the one in Bioshock though recent patches to the game apparently install newer versions. I’ve not patched the game in awhile as I’ve not played it so I can’t say whether that’s true or if the newer versions also complain about legit apps, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did as that seems to be a decision on Securom’s part and not the game publisher.
So now I’m a bit torn on the whole issue as it’s evident that it’s possible to use Securom in a way that is minimally intrusive as I’ve had F.E.A.R installed and working for months on end without ever noticing it and yet the issues that have cropped up with it under Bioshock are troubling indeed. I’m still not happy about the fact that the latest Securom tries to restrict what software I’m allowed to run if I want to play a game I paid money for and I think the nonsense with validation is just stupid, especially with the Steam version. I also don’t like the idea that I’m the one being treated like a criminal.
For the moment I’m still not all that inclined to pick up Bioshock because of the Securom, but it’s also clear that there’s plenty of other games out there I have an interest in that also make use of Securom that I’ll have to reconsider. The issue now is as much about how the publisher decides to implement the DRM as it is what the DRM itself does. Either way it’s all very frustrating.