2 ms·

Now, can you argue for the idea that using SecuROM is comparable to adopting an industry standard for video transmission No, you can't, because the presence of

by tremon 7y ago

Now, can you argue for the idea that using SecuROM is comparable to adopting an industry standard for video transmission No, you can't, because the presence of SecuROM is completely orthogonal to the game features that customers are willing to pay for. This is a feature the publisher insisted on, not something the customer asked for. Moreover, mitigations for the scenario you suggest do exist: you can buy convertors, even high-quality upscalers to convert 70s-era video signals to HDMI signals a modern TV can accept. "Convertors" that mitigate the damage of SecuROM are illegal, again because the publishers insisted on that.

boomlinde 7y ago
> No, you can't, because the presence of SecuROM is completely orthogonal to the game features that customers are willing to pay for. Yes, you can argue for it. That doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is right or even that the reasoning is sound. The point of arguing is to find out that it is, if it is. In this case, I was asking the poster I responded to to present his case because I have presented a case for the opposite conclusion, that these are not comparable situations. > Moreover, mitigations for the scenario you suggest do exist I think you may be getting my argument mixed up with some other argument, because I did not suggest that scenario, and I clearly argue for why I believe that it's an invalid comparison on the basis that a mitigation isn't even necessary in most cases since most TVs have a composite input and you can still buy new TVs that have composite inputs.